KHAITAN INDIA LIMITED Vs. KHAITAR INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the defendants have applied for dismissal of the suit.

(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant has submitted that, leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent, 1865 has not been granted. Though the plaintiff has claimed reliefs with regard to infringement of a registered trade mark, the plaintiff has not claimed anything with regard to passing of. Referring to 2016 Volume 2 Supreme Court Cases page 683 (S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai) he has submitted that, a suit for infringement of registered trade mark, as against a defendant who also possess a registered trade mark is not maintainable. He has relied upon 2013 Volume 4 Maharashtra Law Journal page 627 (Jagdish Gopal Kamath and Ors. v. Lime and Chilli Hospitality Services P. Ltd.) and submitted that, leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent, 1865 is a discretionary exercise. In the facts of the present case, no leave under Clause 14 of the Letters Patent, 1865 has been granted and should be granted.

(3.) Learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has relied upon 2013 (53) PTC 410 (Bombay) (Siyaram Silk Mills Limited v. Shree Siyaram Fab Private Limited and Ors.), 2018 Volume 74 PTC 103 (Delhi) (Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. v. Lupin Ltd. and Anr.) and 2018 (76) PTC 365 (Shambhu Nath and Brothers and Ors. v. Imran Khan) and submitted that, the plaintiff has claimed relief on account of infringement of registered trade mark as well of passing of. Therefore, the suit is maintainable.