Kareena Eugene
In a Judgement dated 1st February, 2019, Permanent injunction restraining infringement and passing off of trademark, copyright, damages, delivery up and more were sought up in this instant suit.
In this case, it was asserted that the plaintiff’s predecessor had started a business of selling sweets in the year 1912 and the trademark or label ‘HIRA SWEETS’ was taken up and adopted by the predecessor in the year 1960.
Plaintiff 1 as mentioned in the judgement, was the registered proprietor of the original artistic work of ‘HIRA SWEETS’ and in 2016 it became registered under Classes 29, 30, 32 and 43 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Bench claimed that inasmuch as the scope of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was concerned, the Court has to see that whether the summons in the suits is duly served or not and/or whether the defendant was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.
The Bench consisting of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri expressed that, ““sufficient cause” is an elastic expression and no hard and fast guidelines are prescribed”.
The defendant was served with summons but they stopped appearing before the Court, after providing with various opportunities and filing written statements.
On the 1st of February 2019, the Court had come to the decision that the defendant had no real hope or expectation of defending the claim.
The suit was eventually decreed in favour of the plaintiff.
