United Coffee House v. Raghav Kalra & Anr.
Before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
2013 (55) PTC 414 [Del]
Decided on: 23.05.2013
United Coffee House (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining Infringement of Trade Mark & Passing Off against the Defendants (Raghav Kalra & Sunil Kalra) from dealing in goods and services under the Trade Mark ‘United Coffee House’.
The case of the Plaintiff in a nutshell was:
- Prior Adoption and Prior use of Trade Mark Since 1942.
- In 1992, Defendants were admitted to benefits of the said partnership firm.
- In 2003, Defendant No. 1 ceased to be a partner relinquishing his shares in favour of Defendant No. 1.
- In 2010 Defendant No. 2 also ceased to be a partner relinquishing his share in favour of other remaining partners.
- In February, 2012 Plaintiff learned that Defendant had applied for Registration of the Mark ‘United Coffee House’.
- No Written Statement was filed by the Defendant though they had entered appearance in the suit in August, 2012.
- The defendants in the Indemnity Bond executed at the time of retirement from the plaintiff firm had unequivocally stated that they shall have no right, title or interest in the partnership firm and had for consideration received relinquished all their rights in the firm including in the name of the business i.e. ‘United Coffee House’ in favour of the continuing/new partners.
The Hon’ble Court passed decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff by relying on:
(i) Indian Performing Rights Society v. Gauhati Town Club; CS(OS) No. 559 of 2010 before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and stating that in suits of the present nature no purpose is served by mechanically calling upon the plaintiff to lead ex parte evidence.; and
(ii) The Deed of Reconstitution and Retirement dated 31st March, 2010; and
(iii) Indemnity Bond executed by the Defendant No.2 Mr. Sunil Kalra besides various other documents in support of the case; and
(iv) Averments made in the plaint, and there being no rebuttal by the Defendants.
It is pertinent to add that in the present suit the counsel for the Plaintiff did not press for relief of delivery up and damages.
Author: Ankit Rastogi