Dismissed

M/S Himganga Polymers India v. M/S Aditya Polymer Industries & Ors.

Delhi HC8 Oct 2024CS(COMM)/471/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposed of a trademark infringement suit. The court dismissed the defendant's counter claim in default due to non-appearance. It decreed the suit against the defendant for specific reliefs relating to permanent injunction and passing off as requested by the plaintiff.

What did the court decide?

Decree in favour of plaintiff against defendant no. 1 for permanent injunction and passing off; counter claim dismissed in default.

M/S Himganga Polymers India Vs M/S Aditya… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 471/2017 & CC(COMM) 55/2017

¶4

M/S HIMGANGA POLYMERS INDIA .....Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Umesh Mishra and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advs. M: 8510062329

¶6

versus

¶7

M/S ADITYA POLYMER INDUSTRIES & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Roshan Lal Goel, Mr. Bhuvan Goel and Mr. Shubham Grover, Advs. for D-5. M: 9654169406

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

O R D E R % 08.10.2024

¶10

The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark ‘KISSAN’ along with passing off of the trademark ‘HIMGANGA’ and rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc. against defendants.

¶11

This Court notes that defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 have already been deleted from the array of parties.

¶12

The suit was decreed against defendant no. 5 vide order dated 29^th January, 2024.

¶13

The present suit is pending only with respect to defendant no. 1. This Court notes that defendant no. 1 has not been appearing before this Court

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2024 at 11:57:19

¶15

since the last many dates. The last appearance on behalf of defendant no. 1 was on 2^nd August, 2023.

¶16

This Court notes that the defendant no. 1 has also filed a counter claim, i.e., CC(COMM) 55/2017 .

¶17

In view of the fact that there is no appearance on behalf of defendant no. 1 and the last appearance on behalf of defendant no. 1 being more than one year ago, the counter claim filed on behalf of defendant no. 1 is dismissed in default and for non-prosecution.

¶18

Vide order dated 29^th January, 2024, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff had been directed to take instructions if the relief qua defendant no. 1 be confined only to relief of injunction.

¶19

Today, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that he has sought instructions and he submits that the suit can be decreed against defendant no. 1 in respect of prayer Clause 31 (a) and 31 (b) of the plaint and that he does not insist for other reliefs against defendant no. 1.

¶20

This Court notes the written statement filed on behalf of defendant no.

¶21

1, wherein, defendant no. 1 has stated as follows:

¶22

“xxx xxx xxx

¶23

3.........

¶24

b. That Def. No. 1 has neither known Def. No. 4 prior to the institution of this suit, nor have they ever entered into any transactions of the goods claimed to be purchased by the plaintiff ever. Def. No. 1 vehemently denies having sold anything ever to Def. No. 4 on the basis of which present suit is relied upon. Hence the material claimed to be purchased by the Plaintiff was not manufactured by Def. No. 1. Therefore there is no cause of action against Def. No. 1 in any manner whatsoever; hence the suit is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2024 at 11:57:19

¶27

10. That Defendant No. 1 believes and declares that it does not use, in any manner whatsoever, the trademarks registered in the name of Mr. Vinay Garg, i.e. 'KISSAN' & 'HGP'.

¶28

xxx xxx xxx”

¶29

Considering the submissions made before this Court and taking into consideration the written statement filed by defendant no. 1, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant no. 1 in terms of prayer (a) and (b) of Para 31 of the plaint.

¶30

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶31

The suit is accordingly disposed of.

¶32

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶33

OCTOBER 8, 2024 ak

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/10/2024 at 11:57:19

M/S Himganga Polymers India v. M/S Aditya Polymer Industries & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Himganga Polymers India v. M/S Aditya Polymer Industries & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arun Kumar Murarka Vs Rajesh Sultania & Anr.

Aveo Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mg Lifecare LLP & Ors.

M/S Jindal (India) Limited Vs M/S Rawalwasia Steel Plant Private Limited

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited Vs Ikon Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Diageo Brands B.V. & Anr. Vs Great Galleon Ventures Limited

Family Health Care Hospital Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S. Shree Nath Drugs & Ors.

Ipas & Anr. Vs Parkash Enterprises & Anr.

Zydus Wellness Limited Vs Sungold Foods Industries & Ors.

Arun Kumar Murarka Vs Rajesh Sultania & Anr.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Csiro Vs Controller of Patents and Anr.

Sunshine Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bayer Healthcare Llc, and Anr.

Diageo Brands B.V. & Anr. Vs Great Galleon Ventures Limited

Ipas & Anr. Vs Parkash Enterprises & Anr.

Music Choice India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Phonographic Performance Ltd.