Allowed

Republic Technologies (Na) Llc v. Vipin Pathak Trading as M/S Pathak Impex and M/S Pathak Traders

Delhi HC7 Feb 2024CS(COMM)/699/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a trademark and copyright infringement suit. The defendant settled, agreed to withdraw its trademark application, and adopt a non-infringing mark. Plaintiffs were granted a decree as prayed and awarded costs of Rs. 2,50,000.

What did the court decide?

Decree of suit granted; Costs of Rs. 2,50,000 awarded; Seized goods to be destroyed.

Republic Technologies (Na) Llc Vs Vipin Pathak Trading… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 699/2021

¶4

REPUBLIC TECHNOLOGIES (NA) LLC ..... Plaintiff

¶5

Through: Mr. Saif Khan, Mr. Shobhit Agarwal and Mr. P. Kushwaha, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

VIPIN PATHAK TRADING AS M/S PATHAK IMPEX AND M/S PATHAK TRADERS ..... Defendant Through: Mr. Jayant Kumar and Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocates for D-1.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶9

O R D E R % 07.02.2024

¶10

The matter is pending for determining of costs and damages considering that, post issuance of summons by this Court on 23^rd December, 2021, defendant’s counsel appeared on 29^th March, 2022 and made a categorical statement that they were willing to change the impugned logo and mark. Subsequently, on 19^th April, 2022, it was noted that an affidavit was filed by defendant regarding the said change of mark and packaging. Deliberations between the parties with respect to alternative mark/logo continued thereafter and finally, on 9^th May, 2023, subsequent to mutual resolution, it was agreed that defendant would not contest the suit on merit and shall adopt a non-infringing trademark. Thus, only issue of cost and

¶11

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 16/12/2024 at 14:29:40

¶12

damages has been kept open.

¶13

Today, Mr. Khan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff states that they are willing to seek a decree from the Court and prays for damages only to the extent of Local Commissioner’s fees and expenses.

¶14

Keeping in mind facts and circumstances of the matter, costs to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- (Two Lakh Fifty Thousand only) may accordingly be paid to the plaintiff within a period of four weeks from today. 4. Present suit is decreed in terms of the prayers (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the plaint.

¶15

“a. An order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his partners as the case may be, agents, servants, distributors and any other persons acting for and on behalf of the Defendant from selling, offering for sale, manufacturing, advertising, importing, exporting, or in any manner commercially dealing in any

¶16

goods bearing the trade mark OOBERG / or any mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s OCB trade marks, amounting to infringement of the Plaintiffs’ registered trademark No. 854360;

¶17

b) An order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his partners as the case may be, agents, servants, distributors and any other persons acting for and on behalf of the Defendant from substantially reproducing, issuing, communicating to the public or otherwise using the logos, labels and trade dress/packaging of the Plaintiff’s OCB products amounting to an infringement of the Plaintiff’s copyright therein;

¶18

¶19

c) An order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his partners as the case may be, agents, servants, distributors and any other persons acting for and on behalf of the Defendant from selling, offering for sale, advertising, manufacturing, importing, exporting, and directly or indirectly dealing in any goods

¶20

bearing the trade mark ‘OOBERG’ / and/or its packaging or any mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s OCB trade marks, amounting to passing off;

¶21

d) An order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his partners as the case may be, agents, servants, distributors and any other persons acting for and on behalf of the Defendant from selling, offering for sale, advertising, manufacturing, and directly or indirectly dealing in any goods bearing the trade mark

¶22

‘OOBERG’ / and/or its packaging or any mark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s OCB trade marks, causing dilution and tarnishment amounting to unfair competition;”

¶23

Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

¶24

It is noted that certain goods were seized by the Local Commissioner appointed pursuant to directions of this Court on 23^rd December, 2021 and were returned to the defendant on superdari . Said goods may be de-sealed and destroyed in the presence of authorized representative/counsel for the parties at defendant’s premises, i.e., M/s Pathak Impex and M/s Pathak Traders, House No. 162, Gali No.6B, Vishnu Colony, Ballabgarh, Faridabad, Haryana-121004.

¶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 16/12/2024 at 14:29:40

¶27

Let the same be done on or before 20^th February, 2024 between 11:00 hours and 17:00 hours IST.

¶28

Counsel for defendant also states, on instructions, that they will withdraw the trademark application no. 4856587 in respect of the impugned mark within a period of two weeks from today.

¶29

The suit is, therefore, disposed of in above terms. Pending applications, if any, are rendered infructuous.

¶30

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶31

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶32

FEBRUARY 7, 2024 /ssc/sc

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 16/12/2024 at 14:29:40

Republic Technologies (Na) Llc v. Vipin Pathak Trading as M/S Pathak Impex and M/S Pathak Traders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Republic Technologies (Na) Llc v. Vipin Pathak Trading as M/S Pathak Impex and M/S Pathak Traders

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

Anil Rathi & Ors. Vs Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited & Anr.

Danfoss a/S Vs Manik Engineers India

3M Innovative Properties Company & Anr. Vs M/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

T M 25 Holding B v Vs Anmol Kadam & Ors.

Ajay Kapoor Vs Dsv Air and Sea Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

M/S United Sales Corporation Vs Bgm Telecommunication Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Geneva Laboratories Limited & Anr. Vs Mr. Jay Khodiyar & Ors.

M/S Valecha Engineering Ltd. Vs the Govt of Nctd & Ors.

Anil Rathi & Ors. Vs Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited & Anr.

Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ashok Kumar / John Doe & Ors.

Alphavax Inc. Vs Controller of Patents

Alstone International Vs Viola Decoratives Pvt. Ltd.

The Coca-Cola Company Vs Mr. Subhash Chand

Shree Sant Kripa Intellectual, 7, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Puna, Maharashtra Vs Glodon Software Co. Ltd. 336-B Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana