LAWS(DLH)-2013-1-137

PRECIOUS JEWELS Vs. VARUN GEMS

Decided On January 16, 2013
Precious Jewels Appellant
V/S
Varun Gems Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff Varun Gems filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair trade dealing, rendition of accounts of profits, damages etc. against two defendants namely Precious Jewels and Ravi Rakyan. The suit along with the interim application was listed before Court on June 01, 2012. Summons in the suit were issued and in the interim application, a detailed order was passed against the defendants by issuance of an ex parte ad-interim injunction whereby they were restrained from using the name RAKYAN and/or any other deceptively similar trade mark to the plaintiff?s trade mark. Upon service, the defendants on August 1, 2012 filed the written statement, reply to the injunction application along with three applications, being I.A.No.14054/2012 under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Order XXXIX, Rule 4 CPC, I.A.No.14055/2012 under Order VII, Rule 11 CPC and I.A.No.14056/2012 under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Notice of these applications was issued for August 30, 2012. Time was granted to file the replies to the fresh applications filed by the defendants. The matter was also heard by the learned Single Judge from time to time. When the matter was listed on November 30, 2012, it was renotified for March 5, 2013. Aggrieved with the said order as well as exparte ad-interim order granted on June 1, 2012, the defendants have filed the present appeal, inter alia, on the ground that they are suffering tremendous loss because of continuation of interim order passed against them which otherwise is not sustainable. The prayer in the appeal is made to set aside the impugned ex-parte order dated June 1, 2012 passed in I.A.No.11250/2012 under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 CPC.

(2.) The appeal was listed before us on December 19, 2012 along with the interim application. Dasti notice was issued for service of the plaintiff who appeared before us on December 21, 2012. Learned counsel for both the parties made a statement that instead of hearing of the present appeal, the pending interim applications, being I.A.No.11250/2012 and I.A.No.14054/2012, be heard by this Bench and order be passed on those applications.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the order was reserved on January 04, 2013. There are certain admitted facts between the parties, the details of which are given as under: