(1.) The original suit was filed in Sept., 2014 seeking, inter alia, permanent injunction against the defendants from using trade mark "COLUMBIA" or any other trademark or trademarks which are deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark "COLUMBIA", alleging cause of action to have arisen to seek such relief against the defendants as it had been discovered that they have been dealing in sale of certain goods, passing them off, using or incorporating the plaintiff's registered trademark or other trademarks deceptively or confusingly similar thereby illegally taking the benefit of its reputation and goodwill.
(2.) While issuing summons on the suit and notice of the applications filed therewith, by order dated 1st Sept., 2014, this court granted ad-interim ex-parte injunction restraining the defendants from using, selling, exporting, displaying, advertising or using the trademark "COLUMBIA" till the next date of hearing. By the same order, on another application (IA No.16584/2014) a local commissioner was appointed to visit the premises of the second defendant to seize infringing goods, advertising material, etc. if found in the said premises and to arrange for the same to be held on supardari and take certain other steps connected therewith. The local commissioner executed the task assigned and submitted the report in due course. An application, in the meanwhile, has been filed by the defendant, it being IA No.22361/2014 under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil P.C. seeking the interim injunction to be vacated. The said application and the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 Civil P.C. (IA No.16583/2014) are awaiting final decision.
(3.) The application at hand has been moved by the plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, meanwhile, to bring about certain amendments in the pleadings, mainly to modify existing paras 6, 16 and 47 of the plaint to bring on record certain additional facts essentially concerning issuance of registration No.1585010 of the trademark "Columbia Sportswear Company" on 13.03.2015, on the basis of application that had been moved on 27.07.2007, setting out in detail in the pleadings the particulars of the said additional registration with specification of goods and classes thereof. The plaintiff also states that during the inspection of the premises of the second defendant by the local commissioner it had come to light, through his report, that the second defendant had moved to a packaging in a box which is blue and brown it being identical to the packaging colours/trade dress of the plaintiff's product. The additional pleadings seek to set out the details of the said similarity in the impugned goods statedly passed off by the defendant in breach of the rights of the plaintiff under the registered trademarks.