SURESH C JAIN Vs. MANOJ JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 11th August, 2008 whereby applications of the petitioner under Order VI Rule 17 and under Order I Rule 10 CPC were dismissed with cost.

(2.) The petitioner filed a suit claiming damages against Sh. Manoj Jain, M/s. Arora Trading Company, Satya Electronics and Ashoka Electricals alleging violation of his trade mark 'SHREE' on packaging material and advertisement. During pendency of the petition, the petitioner made application for impleadment of Sh. Satish Kumar Arora, proprietor of 'Jai Mata Industries' on the ground that Sh. Satish Kumar Arora was manufacturing duplicate bulbs under the trade mark 'SHREE' by running Jai Mata Industries which was owned by Sh. Satish Kumar Arora. It was also alleged that Sh. Satish Kumar Arora was brother of proprietor of M/s. Arora Trading Company, who was already a party to the suit.

(3.) Every infringement is a separate cause of action. There is no ban on brothers doing different businesses. It is petitioner's own case that Sh. Satish Kumar Arora was running a separate company in the name of Jai Mata Industries and was infringing the trade mark of the petitioner. Thus the petitioner, if so advised, had a right to file a separate suit against Sh. Satish Kumar Arora on the ground of infringement of its trade mark and for damages, if any suffered. The petitioner by way of amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC and by way of an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC cannot be allowed to keep on adding different persons infringing its trade mark, in one suit. Every person who infringes the trade mark gives rise to a separate cause of action and he cannot be added as a defendant in a suit which is already pending against other infringer. The trial court, therefore, rightly dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 CPC.