DABUR INDIA LTD. Vs. ALKA AYURVEDIC PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 10059/ 2013 (Order VI Rule 17 CPC) in CS (OS) No. 2639/ 2008 1. By virtue of this application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, the Plaintiff seeks amendment of paras 2 (ii) and 20 of the reply to preliminary submissions/ objections and para 9 of the replication.

(2.) The dispute between the parties is with regard to infringement and passing off in respect of trademark 'HAJMOLA'. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 17.12.2008 granted an ex-parte injunction in favour of the Plaintiff. The order was vacated on 06.10.2009 on the grounds, inter alia, that the Defendant was the registered owner of the alleged infringing trademark 'PACHMOLA' and that the said fact had not been disclosed by the Plaintiff. So much so, that the same had not even been admitted in the replication although a specific plea was taken by the Defendant in the written statement that a search report was filed in the case of Pankaj Goel v. M/s. Dabur India Limited, FAO (OS) No. 82/ 2008, wherein the registered trademark 'PACHMOLA' had come to the notice of the Plaintiff. The packaging of the impugned product was also filed in the said case.

(3.) The plea taken by the Plaintiff is that in the case of Pankaj Goel , there were several trademarks which were similar to the trademark 'HAJMOLA' and there were several marks with the name 'PACHMOLA'. One trademark registered in the name of 'PACHMOLA' was in the name of one Pritam Dass and it was for this reason that in the replication, the Plaintiff had denied knowledge of the registration of the trademark 'PACHMOLA' in the name of the Defendant.