TOASHA AGENCIES Vs. SIDDHANT CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs does not know anything about this application.

(2.) The defendant has contested the suit, pleading (a) that the plaintiffs have acquiesced in and are estopped from suing, having been aware all along of use of TOASHA by the defendant; (b) that the plaintiffs have falsely pleaded employment of the defendant with the plaintiff No.1; the defendant and Amit Garg were friends at Amity University, pursuing the course of Business management during 1998-2000; (c) that the father of Amit Garg was carrying on business as stockist for human vaccines under the name and style of Toasha Agencies; (d) that in the year 2000, the plaintiffs realised that they were unable to earn good returns and to expand their business suggested to the defendant to also enter the business of a stockist of human vaccines and start an independent business in the name of TOASHA, so that as a collective force the parties could enjoy better bargaining powers; (e) that accordingly, in or about 2004, the defendant commenced the business as a stockist under the name and style of Toasha Vaccines (India); (f) that at first the defendant purchased the vaccines from the plaintiffs and sold the same to doctors / chemists; slowly the defendant made his own name in the field and was able to establish a direct relationship with the pharmaceutical companies / manufacturers of vaccines, and from 2006 became a stockist of the companies; (g) that the defendant, from the year 2004 has carried on business in the name and style of Toasha Vaccines (India); (h) that the plaintiffs have always known about the defendant and in fact also had financial transactions with the defendant; (i) that in 2009, the defendant's wife also started a sole proprietorship in Noida by the name of Toasha Vaccines (India) and the plaintiffs were aware of the same also; (j) that the defendant, in an attempt of brand building, also obtained registration of TOASHA as a trade mark in the year 2010-2011; (k) that the plaintiffs as well as the defendant do not deal with any customers directly and deal with chemists and institutions; (l) that the plaintiffs have falsely stated that they were manufacturing medicines and the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone; (m) that the goods sold by the plaintiffs as well the defendant are procured from the multinational pharmaceutical companies, so there is no question of mentioning any mark / name on the finished products of the said pharmaceutical companies; (n) that the suit is an afterthought and there was never any agreement for payment to royalty; and, (o) that the suit is an effect of the jealousy of the plaintiffs for the fast developing business of the defendant.

(3.) This suit along with the application for interim relief came up before this Court on 24th October, 2016, when finding that though the plaintiffs had pleaded that the documents in support of various pleas were filed but in fact were not filed and further, on the basis of the reply by the defendant to the legal notice preceding the suit finding no case for granting ex-parte injunction, though summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief were issued but no ex-parte relief granted.