Court disposed off two original applications seeking interim injunctions against trademark infringement on Amazon India, treating defeated anxiety from defendants' undertaking confirmed in prior Delhi High Court order.
Applications closed; main suit listed on 20.09.2018.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION)
MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR
O.A.Nos.689 & 691 of 2018
in
C.S.No.493 of 2018
..Respondents/Defendants (in both applications)
2
O.A.No.689 of 2018
Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an interim injunction, restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents, by itself, their servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through them from listing
Or any other unknown sellers who are selling, advertising and offering for sale the counterfeit products using the Applicants' registered Trade Mark TEXMO in the 1st and 2nd Respondents' website www.amazon.in or in any manner infringing the Applicants Registered Trade Mark Nos.315049 (SP-I), (SP-II) & 315050 (SP-I), (SP-II) renumbered as 2702778, 270279, 2702780 & 2702781 respectively pending disposal of the above suit.
O.A.No.691 of 2018
Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an interim injunction, restraining https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the 1st and 2nd Respondents, by itself, their servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through them
3
from listing
Or any other unknown sellers who are selling, advertising and offering for sale the counterfeit products using the Applicants' registered Trade Mark TEXMO in the Respondents' website www.amazon.in or in any manner passing off the Applicants Trade Mark TEXMO pending disposal of the above suit.
These Original Applications coming on this day before this court for hearing the court made the following order:
There are two plaintiffs and two defendants in the main suit. Plaintiff 1 and 2 in the main suit are Applicants 1 and 2 respectively in the instant application. Defendants 1 and 2 in the main suit are respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the instant application. Parties in this application are referred to by the respective ranks in the main suit for the sake of convenience and clarity.
4
“There are two plaintiffs and two defendants in the main suit. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 in the main suit are Applicants 1 and 2 respectively in the instant applications. Defendants 1 and 2 in the main suit are Respondent 1 and 2 respectively in the instant applications. Parties in this application are referred to by their respective ranks in the main suit for the sake of convenience and clarity.
2. Ms.Gladys Daniel, learned counsel for plaintiffs and Mr.M.S.Bharath, learned counsel for defendants, are before this Commercial Division.
3. Both learned counsel pointed out that instant application pertains to take down mechanism qua the second defendant's site and injunctive relief qua listing some sellers.
4. Both learned counsel draw my attention to an order dated 17.05.2017, made by a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court in I.A.No. 15702 of 2016 and 4418 of 2017 in C.S (Comm) 1462 of 2016.
5.The Order reads as follows:
Learned counsel for defendant no.8
5
reiterates and reaffirms the undertaking given to this court on 30th January, 2017. She states that in the event the plaintiff informs the defendants of any alleged illegal listing on the following e-mail IDs, requisite legal action shall be taken within 48 working hours:-
She further states that the defendant no.8 shall disclose the details of the sellers of the infringing products in response to the plaintiff's request within 48 working hours. Learned counsel for the plaintiff prays for some time to obtain instructions. List on 06th July, 2017.'
6.Learned counsel for defendants submits that the aforesaid two e-mails Ids referred to in the aforesaid order continue to operate and they will function as take-down mechanism qua the site, which is subject matter of the suit i.e.,site of the second defendant.
7. There is no dispute or disagreement between the parties that complaints, if any, will not be restricted to the plaint averments and if any future complaints regarding some other sellers are brought to the notice of the mail Ids, the same will also be taken out and attended to as per standard operating procedures and this aspect has also been articulated in the aforesaid order.
8. Learned counsel for plaintiffs submits
6
that the aforesaid stand of the defendants douses the anxiety of the plaintiffs and therefore the same shall be treated as prayer in the instant application being answered in the affirmative for the present.”
List the main suit on 20.09.2018.
Sd/-M.S.J
03.09.2018
//Certified to be a true copy//
Dated this the day of 2018.
KY/05.09.2018 COURT OFFICER
From 25.09.2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies
of the Order/Judgment Decree in this format.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
I.A.No. 15702 of 2016 and 4418 of 2017 in C.S (Comm) 1462 of 2016Referred¶54
Aqua Pump Industries
Aqua Sub Engineering
Amazon Technologies INC
Amazon Seller Services (P) Limited
M.Sundar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
