Disposed

Rahul Jain v. Kalpesh Kumar

Karnataka HC23 May 2023MFA/5241/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC was disposed of. The High Court observed that the suit concerning trademark infringement is pending and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously within six months.

What did the court decide?

The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.5055/2020 expeditiously, not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Rahul Jain Vs Kalpesh Kumar — Intellectual Property | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - MFA No. 5241 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5241 OF 2021 (IPR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAHUL JAIN SON OF SRI MAHAVEER JAIN AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS PROPRIETOR, KALPAVRUKSH TRADERS NO. 37/44, GROUND FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS NEAR R K PUBLIC SCHOOL AVALAHALLI MAIN ROD, AVALAHALLI TIMBER YARD LAYOUT NEAR TUNGA BAR AND RESTAURANT MYSORE ROAD, BENGAURU 560 026

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT. ARPITHA ANANTHRAM H., ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by C MALATHI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

AND:

¶12

KALPESH KUMAR SON OF SRI BHAWARLAL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS PROPRIETOR, ARIHANT IMPEX NO. 45-4, 3^RD CROSS NEW TIMBER YARD LAYOUT BENGALURU 560 026

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK N V., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER ORDER 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2021 PASSED ON IA NO.4

¶16

¶17

MFA No. 5241 of 2021

¶18

IN O.S.NO.5055/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, (CCH NO.10), ALLOWING IA NO.4 FILED U/O.39 RULE 4 R/W SEC.151 OF CPC.

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) of CPC is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.5055/2020, challenging the order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.Nos.2 to 4 whereby the

¶22

trial Court has dismissed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 filed by the plaintiff under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC and allowed I.A.No.4 filed by the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 3A and 4 of CPC.

¶23

The plaintiff has filed a suit seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

“a) To issue an order of perpetual/permanent injunction restraining the Defendant and it’s employees, servants, agents or any person/s acting or claiming under them in whatsoever capacity, from carrying on the business of manufacturing, selling, marketing, distributing and in any manner trading with products, goods or services under the

¶25

¶26

MFA No. 5241 of 2021

¶27

mark/name/label “Kiosk”, tagline “The New

¶28

”, with similar

¶29

Generation To Interiors” and “ ”, with similar name, font, design, get-up, pattern, which is both visually and phonetically deceptively similar or in any manner whatsoever causing infringement of the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark/word mark/label mark and/or

¶30

brand name “ ” bearing TM No.4378783 and TM No.4378784;

¶31

b) To issue an order of perpetual/permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its employees, servants, agents or any person/s acting or claiming under them in whatsoever capacity, from carrying on the business of manufacturing, selling, marketing, distributing and in any manner trading with products, goods or services under the mark/name/label “Kiosk”, tagline “The New

¶32

Generation To Interiors” and “ ”, with similar name, font, design, get-up, pattern, which is both visually and phonetically deceptively similar or in any manner whatsoever causing passing off of the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark/word mark/label mark and/or

¶33

brand name “ ”;

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 5241 of 2021

¶36

c) To deliver-up to the Plaintiff all material, labels, cartons, unsold goods in stock, delivery challans, invoices, goods-in-transit or warehouse,

¶37

etc., with the mark/name/label “ ”, with similar name, font, design, get-up, pattern, which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark/word

¶38

mark/label mark and/or brand “ ”, sales of

¶39

products with the mark/name/label “ ” with similar name, font, design, get-up, pattern, which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark/work

¶40

mark/label mark and/or brand “ ”;

¶41

d) Grant costs of these proceedings; and

¶42

e) Grant such further relief/s or order/s that this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶43

During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has filed I.A.Nos.2 and 3 under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of

¶44

CPC seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendant and it’s employees, servants, agents or any

¶45

¶46

MFA No. 5241 of 2021

¶47

person/s acting or claiming under them in whatsoever capacity, from carrying on the business of manufacturing, selling, marketing, distributing and in any manner trading with products, goods or services under the mark/name/label “Kiosk”, tagline “The New Generation To Interiors” and “Kiosk”, with similar name phonetically deceptively similar or in any manner whatsoever causing infringement of the plaintiff’s trademark/word mark, label mark and or brand name “KIOSK” bearing TM No.4378783 and TM No.4378784 pending disposal of the suit.

¶48

After hearing both the parties, the trial Court by order dated 27.09.2021 dismissed the applications filed by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court in this appeal.

¶49

The order dated 27.09.2021 is operating till

¶50

today and there is no interim order. Under these circumstances and in the interest of justice, the only relief that can be granted by this Court is to direct the trial

¶51

¶52

MFA No. 5241 of 2021

¶53

Court to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.5055/2020 as expeditiously as possible.

¶54

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit in O.S.No.5055/2020 in accordance with law, as

¶55

expeditiously as possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶56

The parties are directed to co-operate for early disposal of the suit.

¶57

In view of disposal of the main appeal, all pending applications do not survive for consideration. Hence, the same are also disposed of.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Rahul Jain v. Kalpesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Jain v. Kalpesh Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms.Ratnasri Karra Vs Ms.Nisary Mahesh

Sri.C. Muniyappa Vs Smt. Mamatha

M/S Karnataka Co. Operative Milk Producers Vs M/S Venkis Mineral Water Products

Sri M R Narasaraju Vs Sri a L Muneendranath

Smt.M.Bharathi Vs Sri.B.Gangappa

S. Jagadeesh Gowda Vs Nataraj