INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD Vs. DATA INFOSYS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the defendants under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter 'the Act') for stay of the proceedings initiated against them before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) by the plaintiff. The proceedings before IPAB seek rectification of the register qua the mark 'Data Infosys' of which registration was obtained by the defendants.

(2.) THE present suit is a suit by the company-M/s. Infosys Technologies Ltd., an Indian multinational, claiming rights in the trade mark Infosys and seeking restraint etc against the defendants from infringing/using the same. During the pendency of the suit the defendants obtained registration of the trade mark 'Data Infosys'. To incorporate this aspect in their written-statement, the defendants filed an amendment application. This application for amendment was allowed. Issues were also re-framed taking notice of the registration obtained by the defendants for the trade mark 'Data Infosys'.

(3.) IN my opinion, the arguments urged on behalf of the defendants are wholly misconceived. This I say so because the provision of Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 relied upon by the applicants/defendants, and the observations in the aforesaid two judgments in the case of Astrazeneca UK Ltd.(supra), provide for the situation where a person seeks to get proceedings in the suit (not IPAB proceedings) stayed on the ground that he has filed rectification proceedings after filing of the suit and thus in such situations to avoid bringing to a halt the progress of the suit, Courts have required that prior permission of the Court would have to be obtained where the suit is already pending and only thereafter the rectification proceedings are commenced. It is in that context that the aforesaid two judgments in the case of Astrazeneca UK Ltd.(supra) hold that the proceedings in the suits cannot be stayed by invoking Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 merely because rectification proceedings have been filed before the appropriate authority under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. What the defendants seek to do here is the opposite i.e. seek stay of the IPAB proceedings, and which is not the scope of Section 124. The judgments relied upon by the applicants/defendants do not hold that Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 provides that proceedings before the IPAB have to be stayed unless permission of this Court is obtained under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 for continuing with the proceedings before IPAB. Once there is no issue of stay of the suit, inasmuch as the plaintiff who has initiated proceedings for rectification is not seeking stay of this suit, the ratio of Astrazeneca UK Ltd.(supra) does not come into play. In my opinion, the defendants want to unnecessarily bring issues which have no relevance or bearing so far as the disposal of the present suit is concerned, and, the object of this application is to unnecessarily delay the progress of the suit i.e. the very object which the ratio of the judgments in Astrazeneca UK Ltd.(supra) cases seek to prevent.