DISH TV INDIA LTD Vs. PRASAR BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the trade mark „DISHTV? of the plaintiff and from passing off the defendant?s services as that of the plaintiff by adoption of the name / mark „FREE DISH? and for ancillary reliefs.

(2.) The suit came up first before this Court on 15 th October, 2014, when the counsel for the defendant appeared on advance notice. Summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief were issued and the counsel for the defendant directed to take instructions, whether the defendant was agreeable to an amicable settlement. Pleadings were completed and no mention is found in any of the subsequent orders of any attempts at amicable settlement being made. On completion of pleadings, issues in the suit were also struck on 26th August, 2016 but the application of the plaintiff for interim relief remained to be heard, on most dates owing to non-availability of the counsel for the defendant. In spite of issues having been framed nearly three years back, recording of evidence is still at an initial stage, with PW-1 having been only partly examined-in-chief as yet.

(3.) The counsels were heard on 13th November, 2018. After I made my mind clear to the counsel for the defendant, the counsel for the defendant stated that he needed to cite case law and sought adjournment. The hearing was again adjourned from time to time and the counsel for the defendant was further heard only on 16th November, 2018 and the hearing concluded on 22nd November, 2018 and orders reserved.