RAYMOND LTD Vs. RAMESHWAR DAS DWARKADAS P.LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners invoke inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Code) for quashing of the summoning order dated 07.11.2006 and the Criminal Complaint No.30/1 of 2005 titled M/s. Rameshwar Das Dwarkadas Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Raymond Limited & Others.

(2.) A complaint under Section 499 read with Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was preferred by the Respondent against the Petitioners on the allegations that the Respondent is the assignee of the trademark SUNSTAR. The trademark SUNSTAR is duly registered at number 1061264 with the trademark registry in the name of M/s. Unique Strategic Alliance. M/s. Unique Strategic Alliance by a deed of assignment dated 01.04.2005 transferred all rights in the earlier said trademark in favour of the Respondent. The first Petitioner (M/s. Raymond Limited and Ors.) served a legal notice dated 30.06.2005 Ex.CW-1/3 upon the Respondent alleging that it (Petitioner No.1) was the registered user of the trademark SUNFLOWER, JK, Sher, Rej, Three Files, Two Files etc. etc. The first Petitioner complained that use of the trademark SUNSTAR on the packaging case of the Files being manufactured by Unique Star Alliance and marketed by the Respondent and Econ International Pvt. Ltd. was infringement of the trademark belonging to the first Petitioner. Thus, the Respondent was required

(3.) The Respondent replied the earlier said notice denying that the Respondent was infringing the trademark SUNSTAR on the other hand the first Petitioner was informed that the SUNSTAR brand was being owned by the Respondent and was duly registered with the trade mark registry and if the first Petitioner had any objection to the registration, it could approach the trademark Registry. The first Respondent was, therefore, required to withdraw the notice and tender apology for issuing the ceased and desist notice. The first Petitioner was further informed that its action was against commercial morality and amounted to monopolistic trade practice. The Respondent, therefore, put the first Petitioner to notice to initiate appropriate proceedings against it (the first Petitioner) for intentionally issuing a notice to diminish the competitor in the market.