JAIDEEP MOHAN Vs. HUB INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction restraining the two defendants namely Hub International Industries and NV Distilleries & Breweries Pvt. Ltd. from manufacturing, bottling, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in alcoholic beverages including premium whiskey blended with scotch, gin, rum, vodka, wine and brandy under the trade mark "GOLDSMITH" averring the same to be similar/deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark "BLACKSMITH" and for ancillary reliefs of recovery of damages, destruction, etc.

(2.) The suit came up first before this Court on 10th June, 2016 when though summons of the suit were ordered to be issued but no ex parte ad interim order sought, granted. The defendants, on service of summons, have filed a joint written statement and to which a replication has been filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The suit came up before this Court on 8th November, 2016, for framing of issues and for hearing of the application for interim relief, when after hearing the counsels it was felt that there is no need to frame issues and relegate the parties to trial, because the two words "BLACKSMITH" and "GOLDSMITH" have definite meaning which is understood by most of the population of the country, even those not conversant with english language and thus no case for infringement of trade mark was made out particularly when the counsel for the plaintiff, on enquiry, informed that more than 90% of the sales of the plaintiff are through the Defence Canteen and the Police Canteen sales whereto and wherefrom could definitely be not said to be affected by the commonality of "SMITH" in the two words. It was however proposed, that by way of settlement, the possibility of the defendant changing the shape of its bottle and its packaging / carton, could be explored and for which the counsel for the defendants stated that the defendants may be agreeable with effect from the next date of renewal of the excise licence. On request of the counsel for the plaintiff, the hearing was adjourned to 9th November, 2016 to enable him to obtain instructions.