DINESH GUPTA Vs. VICTORINOX AG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been heard by way of video conferencing.

(2.) Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 11th February, 2021 passed in CS(COMM) 2138 of 2019, whereby the learned District Judge has dismissed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC of the appellants filed for vacation of the ex-parte ad interim order dated 30thJuly, 2019 and has allowed the application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC filed by the respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants states that the competing marks VICTORINOX of the respondent and VICTORIA CROSS/VICTORIACROSS of the appellants are totally different and the cross as well as shield device 1 of the respondent is strikingly different from the cross 2 device of the appellants. He emphasises that the respondent in the present case has suppressed material facts as well as documents. He also submits that the suit is barred by acquiescence as the mark of the appellants had been registered abroad prior in time.