Allowed

Dow International Technology Corporation & Ors. v. Elixir Trading Pvt. Ltd.

Delhi HC3 May 2024CS(COMM)/605/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a trade mark infringement suit, the Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff. The Defendant was ordered to deliver specific labelled goods and offer other goods for inspection to determine if they bear Plaintiff's trademarks. The Plaintiff also waived claims for damages and rendition of accounts.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed. Defendant to deliver labelled goods and allow inspection of unlabelled boxes. Plaintiff waived claims for damages and receivership.

Dow International Technology Corporation & Ors. Vs Elixir… — Specific Performance | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~48

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 605/2016 & I.A. 9327/2020

¶4

DOW INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION & ORS ..... Plaintiffs

¶5

Through: Ms. Juhi Chawla, Ms. Shiraz Patodia and Mr. Ashish Singh, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

ELIXIR TRADING PVT LTD ..... Defendant

¶8

Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Maurya, Advocate with Mr. Gaurav Taneja, Director of Defendant.

¶9

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R 03.05.2024

¶11

At the outset, Mr. Anil Kumar Maurya, counsel for Defendant, points out that Paragraph No. 2 of the previous order records that “… the Defendant has sold certain un-labelled A.C. adaptors and booster pumps…”. He clarifies that, in fact, they have only sold the unlabelled booster pumps, although the Defendant had also been granted the liberty to dispose of the A/C adaptors, as noted in the said order. He submits that the said A/C adaptors are still lying with Defendant, however, emphasises that the Plaintiff can have no claim over the same.

¶12

Further, it is noticed that Paragraph No. 3 of the previous order inadvertently records that the Local Commissioner had seized 144 cartons of 24 membranes each, however, the report of the Local Commissioner specifies seizure of 144 cartons of 25 membranes each. Let the same be read accordingly.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 07/05/2024 at 11:23:51

¶15

Mr. Gaurav Taneja, Director of the Defendant Company, is present in Court pursuant to directions issued on 30^th April, 2024.

¶16

Mr. Taneja as well as Mr. Maurya state that Defendant Company is now using their own brand “CAPTAIN PURE” in respect of their products, and therefore they have no objection to the relief of permanent injunction sought by the Plaintiff. Insofar as the relief of delivery up is concerned, Mr. Taneja states that after carrying out further extensive search of their premises, in addition to the goods which were listed in the previous order, they have now been able to trace the remaining goods that were seized by the Local Commissioner as per the inventory list mentioned in the superdarinama . The details of inventory has been provided to the counsel for Plaintiff. She confirms that the list provided by Defendant tallies with list mentioned in superdarinama prepared by the Local Commissioner. The Defendant has no objection to delivering the said goods to the Plaintiff. However, they submit that the 144 cartons of 25 membranes each are unlabelled and therefore, Plaintiff cannot have any objection to the said goods being retained by Defendant.

¶17

In light of the above stand taken by the Defendant, counsel for Plaintiff states on instructions that she is agreeable to waive the claim for rendition of accounts, damages and appointment of Receiver, as prayed in Paragraphs No. 67 (e), (f) and (g) of the Plaint.

¶18

In view of the above statements and the stands taken by the counsel for parties, the following directions are issued:

¶19

6.1. The suit is decreed in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendant in terms of Paragraphs No. 67 (a), (b) and (c) of the Plaint.

¶20

6.2. As regards delivery up is concerned, as prayed in Paragraph No. 67(d)

¶21

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 07/05/2024 at 11:23:51

¶22

of the Plaint, the Defendant shall hand over the following goods:

¶23

(a) 28 boxes of 25 membranes each with ‘Dew Flow’ written on them

¶24

(b) 1 carton labels with ‘Dew Flow’ or ‘Dow Flow’ written on them

¶25

6.3. Further, the 144 boxes of 25 membranes each, which are in the custody of the Defendant, shall be offered for inspection by the Plaintiff’s representative and counsel, in the presence of the Defendant’s representative and counsel. In case the goods found in the said boxes are unlabelled, the Defendant shall be entitled to retain the same. However, in case these bear any of the Plaintiff’s trademarks, the same shall be delivered to the Plaintiff’s representative, who shall then be entitled to destroy the said goods, at their own risk and cost, in accordance with law.

¶26

6.4. As regards the unlabelled A/C Adaptors are concerned, the Defendant has already been granted liberty to dispose of the same in terms of order dated 18^th December, 2014. Thus, the Plaintiff is not entitled to claim delivery up of the said goods.

¶27

Needless to say, at the time of handing over of goods, in case any discrepancy is noticed by the Plaintiff, they shall point the same out to the Defendant, and in case the same is not resolved, Plaintiff shall be at liberty to apply to this Court to address the same.

¶28

The suit is decreed in the above terms. Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶29

With the above directions, the suit, along with pending applications if any, is disposed of.

¶30

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶31

MAY 3, 2024/ d.negi

¶32

Dow International Technology Corporation & Ors. v. Elixir Trading Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dow International Technology Corporation & Ors. v. Elixir Trading Pvt. Ltd.

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

Tata Sons Private Limited Vs Deepak Kumar & Anr.

Glaxo Group Limited Vs Dermazone Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

Austin Nichols and Co. Vs Arvind Behl

Pfizer Products, Inc. Vs Renovision Exports Pvt. Ltd.

M/S Ocm Singapore Njord Holdings Hardrada Pte Ltd. & Anr. Vs Mr. Prerit Goel & Ors.

Dabur India Limited Vs Ashok Kumar and Others

Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs John Doe and Others

Exxon Mobil Corporation Vs M/S Bike Zone / Siddhivinayak Autoline & Ors.

Tata Sons Private Limited Vs Deepak Kumar & Anr.

Mankind Pharma Ltd. 208, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-Iii, New Delhi Vs Gurinder Singh, 205, Cedar Ansal Township, Talaawali Chaanda, INDORE-452010, Mp

Glaxo Group Limited Vs Dermazone Pharmaceuticals Private Limited

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs Wings Novitas Healthcare LLP & Ors.

Karim Hotels Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Nizamuddin & Anr.

North Side Brewers Private Ltd. Vs the Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr.