Allowed

Innovations Garment Pvt. Ltd. v. Harshaben Vijaybhai Shah Proprietor

Bombay HC14 Mar 2024COMIP/353/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a commercial IP suit where the plaintiff and defendant reached an amicable settlement. The court decreed the suit for injunction and damages while allowing related applications and discharging the court receiver.

What did the court decide?

Decree granted in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) for injunction and liquidated damages. Interim applications and receiver's report disposed off.

Innovations Garment Pvt. Ltd. Vs Harshaben… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

(16)iaL19720-2023.odt

¶2

rajshree

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO.353 OF 2023

¶6

WITH

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.19720 OF 2023 WITH

¶8

COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.297 OF 2023

¶9

WITH

¶10

LEAVE PETITION (L) NO.19687 OF 2023 IN

¶11

COMMERCIAL IP SUIT NO.353 OF 2023

¶12

Innovations Garment Pvt. Ltd. ] .. Plaintiff vs. Harshaben Vijaybhai Shah, Proprietor of ] Royal Uniform ] .. Defendant

¶13

Mr.Hiren Kamod a/w Prem Khullar, Aditya Chitale and Prashant Shetty i/b RKDewan Legal Services for the Plaintiff.

¶14

Ms.Riddhi Hakeem for the Defendant.

¶15

Ms.Charushila M. Vaidya, 2^nd Assistant to Court Receiver present.

¶16

CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE, J

¶17

DATE : 14^th March, 2024.

¶18

P.C.

¶19

1] The Consent Minutes of the Order under the signature of the

¶20

Plaintiff and the Defendant dated 14.03.2024 are placed on record.

¶21

By accepting the same, it is marked as ‘X’ for identification.

¶22

1/4

¶23

(16)iaL19720-2023.odt

¶24

2] The parties have agreed for a decree being granted in favour of the Plaintiff in terms of prayer clause (a), (b) and (c) of the Plaint, in the wake of the amicable settlement arrived between them.

¶25

The Defendant has acknowledged and confirmed that the Plaintiff is the true and lawful proprietor of the trademark in distinct classes and the owner of the copyright subsisting in the aristic work and he has unconditionally acknowledged and agreed the Plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights therein.

¶26

The Consent Minutes of Order also record that the Defendant has paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards cost and Para 6 and 7 has recorded certain understanding as regards disposal of the goods in presence of the Plaintiff’s representatives alongwith a clause for payment of RS.5,00,000/- as and by way of liquidated damages to the Plaintiff, in case there is any disobedience of breach of the undertakings stipulated therein.

¶27

3] The Leave Petition (L) No.19687/2023 is allowed and disposed off as agreed between the parties.

¶28

4] The Suit stand decreed in terms of prayer clause (a), (b) and (c) of the Plaint as below :

¶29

2/4

¶30

(16)iaL19720-2023.odt

¶31

“(a) that Defendant by itself, its proprietors, partners, servants, agents, stockists, dealers, distributors and all persons acting on its behalf be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark bearing registration Nos.3700255, 3700256, 3700257, 3700258, 3700259 in Classes 18, 21, 25, 26 and 35, respectively, or any of them, by the use of the impugned trade mark as shown at Exhibit K to the Plaint or any other trade mark which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark in respect of the said goods and services or in any other manner whatsoever.

¶32

(b) that Defendant by itself, its proprietors, partners, servants, agents, stockists, dealers, distributors and all persons acting on its behalf be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from infringing the Plaintiff’s copyright in the Plaintiff’s said trade mark shown at Exhibit B to the Plaint by reproducing in any material form or communicating to the public the impugned trade mark shown at Exhibit K to the Plaint which is a reproduction of the Plaintiff’s said trade mark shown at Exhibit B to the Plaint or in any other manner whatsoever.

¶33

(c) that Defendant by itself, its proprietors, partners, servants, agents, stockists, dealers, distributors and all persons acting on its behalf be restrained by a perpetual order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from manufacturing, selling, advertising, distributing, marketing, exhibiting for sale or otherwise dealing in the impugned goods or like goods under the impugned trade mark or any other trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s well-known trade mark so as to pass off its impugned goods or like goods as and for the Plaintiff’s said goods and services or in any other manner whatsoever.”

¶34

5] Court fees, to be refunded, as per entitlement.

¶35

Pending Interim Applications are disposed off.

¶36

3/4

¶37

(16)iaL19720-2023.odt

¶38

6] Court Receiver stand discharged without passing accounts. Needless to state that the Court Receiver shall be entitled for the

¶39

necessary costs, expenses towards discharge of its duty.

¶40

7] Court Receiver’s Report No.297/2023 stand disposed off.

¶41

[BHARATI DANGRE, J]

¶42

4/4

Innovations Garment Pvt. Ltd. v. Harshaben Vijaybhai Shah Proprietor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Innovations Garment Pvt. Ltd. v. Harshaben Vijaybhai Shah Proprietor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jsw Steel Ltd. vs Delta Iron and Steel Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Nagnath Uddhav Kadam vs the State of Maharashtra through Prin. Secretary, Dept. of Textile and Co-Op. and Ors.

Bhagyadeep Electrical Engg. and Decorators vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Infinite India Investment Management Limited vs Ekvity Ventures LLP and Ors.

Motilal Nagar 2 Anmol Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs State of Maharashtra

Motilal Nagar 2 A1 Haram Co. Operative Housing Society vs State of Maharashtra