Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v. Verizona Private Limited & Ors.

Delhi HC17 Feb 2020CS(COMM)/524/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court examined inconsistences in affidavits filed by the defendant regarding truthful disclosure of facts. Finding the defendant misrepresented facts, the court closed proceedings subject to the defendant paying an additional sum of Rs.1 lakh, alongside a previously directed amount of Rs.2 lakhs, to the plaintiffs by February 27, 2020.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings closed upon defendant paying additional Rs.1 lac, totaling Rs.3 lacs, to plaintiffs by February 27, 2020. Revival of prosecution action if not paid.

Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Delhi HC (2020)

¶1

$~6

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 524/2019

¶4

VERIZON TRADEMARK SERVICES LLC & ORS. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Vaishali Mittal and Ms. Mrinali Menon, Advs.

¶5

Versus

¶6

VERIZONA PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Dhruv Kumra, Adv. for D-3.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R

¶8

% 17.02.2020

¶9

The counsel for the plaintiffs and the counsel for the defendant No.3 have been heard in pursuance to the notice issued to the defendant No.3 vide order dated 14^th November, 2019 read with the order dated 17^th October, 2019.

¶10

The counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that Ajesh Kumar Garg of defendant No.3 has in the affidavit dated 30^th January, 2020 falsely deposed in paragraph 10 that in terms of letter dated 15^th October, 2018 by defendant No.4 to defendant No.3, the label design was then still to be provided by the defendant No.4 to defendant No.3 and thus the defendant No.3 was oblivious of the label under which the product which defendant No.3 had been asked to manufacture, was to be sold. Attention is drawn to the affidavit dated 14^th November, 2019 of Ajesh Kumar Garg and in which in paragraph 4, Ajesh Kumar Garg has deposed that the defendant No.3 had CS(COMM) 524/2019 Page 1 of 4

¶11

supplied the Ayurvedic Medicinal Preparations in the form of capsules “bearing the impugned mark”, to the defendant No.4, by way of three invoices. It is contended that there is thus inconsistency between what is stated in the two affidavits.

¶12

Per contra, the counsel for the defendant No.3 has drawn attention to the documents filed with affidavit dated 14^th November, 2019 to contend that in the letter dated 15^th October, 2018 itself, it is stated that the label design was to be provided by the defendant No.4 to the defendant No.3 and thus this is no inconsistency. It is stated that the label design was provided at the time of raising of the invoices dated 27^th October, 2018, 6^th December, 2018 and 15^th January, 2019.

¶13

With respect to the statement made on behalf of the defendant No.3 and recorded in paragraph 1 of the order dated 17^th October, 2019 to the effect that the defendant No.3 had “long back” manufactured the goods under the impugned mark, it is argued that the term “long back” is a relative expression used by the earlier counsel for the defendant No.3.

¶14

When invoices for the supply made, were being raised by the defendant No.3 on the defendant No.1 till 15^th January, 2019, on 17^th October, 2019 it could by no stretch of imagination be said that the supply had been made long back.

¶15

The counsel for the plaintiffs has also contended that the price, at the rate of Rs.120/- per bottle for supply of 500 pieces of hair capsules, with 60 capsules in each bottle, could not have been as reflected in the three invoices dated 27^th October, 2018, 6^th December, 2018 and 15^th January, 2019, the value of which is much more. It is stated that attempt to explain away the CS(COMM) 524/2019 Page 2 of 4

¶16

same also is made, by merely calling it inadvertent. The counsel for the plaintiffs has thus argued that the defendant No.3 and Ajesh Kumar Garg are liable to be prosecuted for the falsehood practised before this Court.

¶17

The counsel for the defendant No.3, at this stage states that the defendant No.3, in paragraph 9 of the affidavit dated 30^th January, 2020 has also stated that the defendant No.3 does not have any printing facility at its work.

¶18

The aforesaid definitely leads to the conclusion that the defendant No.3 has not been making a clean breast of state of affairs before this Court and has been misrepresenting facts to ward off claim for damages, and when caught, agreed to injunction being granted. However, it is deemed appropriate to close the proceedings, subject to the defendant No.3, in addition to the amount of Rs.2 lacs directed to be paid earlier and which is stated to not have been paid, paying another sum of Rs.1 lac to the plaintiffs. 9. If the entire amount of Rs.3 lacs is not transmitted by the defendant No.3 on or before 27^th February, 2020 to the account, particulars of which are mentioned herein below, the plaintiffs shall be entitled to revive the action for proceeding against the defendant No.3 and Ajesh Kumar Garg.

¶19

Page 3 of 4

¶20

CS(COMM) 524/2019

¶21

Name of company	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS IND PVT. LTD.
Beneficiary	VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS IND PVT.
Address	LTD. UNIT NO.305,3^RDFLOOR, AERO
	CITY, ASSET NO.7, WORLDMARK 3, INDIRA GANDHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT,NEW DELHI-110037
Bank Address	Citibank N.A. 1^stFloor, DLF Capital Point, Kharak Singh Mark, NewDelhi-110 001
Account Number	0016625019
Citibank Branch	Delhi
Currency	INR
IFSC Code	CITI0000002
MICRCode	110037002
SWIFT Code	CITIINBX

¶22

In terms of above, the show cause notice issued to defendant No.3 and Ajesh Kumar Garg is closed.

¶23

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶24

FEBRUARY 17, 2020 „bs‟..

¶25

Page 4 of 4

¶26

CS(COMM) 524/2019

Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v. Verizona Private Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Verizon Trademark Services Llc & Ors. v. Verizona Private Limited & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Intec Infra-Technologies Private Limited Vs Bim Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Chanel Sarl Vs M/S Preet Buckle House

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp & Anr. Vs Zifam Pinnacle Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Hari Om Gupta Vs Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

M/S. Brio Bliss Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Nishu Medical Store & Ors.

B K G Overseas & Anr. Vs B K G Glass International & Anr.

Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. Mehtab Sindhu

Vestige Marketing Private Limited Vs Vestige Labs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

M/S. Shakti Residency Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mrs. Rani Sharma

Sarabjit Singh Vs Paramjit Singh & Anr.

Intec Infra-Technologies Private Limited Vs Bim Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Sap Aktiengesellschaft & Anr. Vs M/S Varehouse Infotech & Ors.

Steelbird Hi Tech India Ltd. Vs Asia Fibre Glass Products & Anr.

M/S. Brio Bliss Life Science Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Nishu Medical Store & Ors.