I received an order. please explain me the same
Anand Saraf
(Querist) 15 October 2014
This query is : Resolved
GA No.3120 of 2014
CS No.358 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
PANGHAT SAREES PVT. LTD.
-Versus-
PANGHAT & ORS.
Appearance:
Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Adv.
...for the plaintiff.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN
Date : 26th September, 2014.
The Court : Let the affidavit of service filed in Court
today be kept with the records.
In spite of service of this application, none has
appeared to oppose this application. The petitioner is claiming to
be the sole proprietor of 'Panghat'. It is stated that the
petitioner is the owner of the trademark Panghat Sarees and has
been continuing the same since 1999. It was initially in the name
of Nirmal Saraf and thereafter the private limited company was
formed in 2003. It is stated that the petitioner is the assignee
of the trademark Panghat from Nirmal Saraf, who is the promoter-
director of the company. On 30th January, 2014, on an application
filed by the petitioner, the trademark 'Panghat Sarees' have been
2
registered in the name of the petitioner in Class-24 under the
Trademarks Act, 1999. The petitioner has also filed an application
on 19th August, 2014 for registration of the wordmark "Panghat
Sarees" in Class-24 under the Trademarks Act, 1999 to protect its
exclusive proprietary right over the wordmark. In July, 2014, the
petitioner came to know that the respondents are trying to sell
sarees under an identical and deceptively similar mark "Panghat" from 127A, Park Street, Kolkata-700 017. Immediately, a cease and desist notice was issued on 20th August, 2014. Following such notice an e-mail was forwarded to the Advocate of the petitioner stating that the partnership firm was established on 1st April, 2010. A deed of partnership, executed by the partners, dated 1st April, 2010 was also forwarded to the Advocate-on-record of the petitioner. Although the wordmark has not been registered, but the fact remains that the labelmark namely, "Panghat Sarees" have been registered on 30th January, 2004 and the said registration is still valid and subsisting. It also appears that the volume of sale of the sarees of the petitioner has increased considerably from 2004-05. In such a situation, an obligation is cast upon the defendant to explain to the adoption of the wordmark "Panghat". In spite of notice the defendants are not represented. This Court is, prima facie, of the view that the petitioner has a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience lies in favour of passing an ad interim order in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (b) of the petition.
The matter is made returnable on 3rd November, 2014. The petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondents.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SOUMEN SEN, J.) A/s.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 15 October 2014
What do you want to know?
The order prima facie seems to be right unless new facts are brought to light.
If you disclose in whose you need advice then further assistance can be made.
In any case after reopening of court on puja vacation the determination is likely to be changes and Hon'ble Justice SOumen Sen is not expecetd to hear the case, may be Hon'ble Justice Nadira Patheriya.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 15 October 2014
The perusal of the petition would equip more to advise further.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 15 October 2014
it appears that defendants did not appear inspite of notice . in interest of justice interim reliefs were granted to petitioner and defendant restrained from using trademark panghat sarees
Anand Saraf
(Querist) 16 October 2014
I wanted to know the advice for the defendant Panghat Sarees, who did not appear in the court
Anirudh
(Expert) 16 October 2014
Your lawyer should have asked for interim order restraining the defendants from selling the sarees in the trade mark/word mark "Panghat Sarees". Even on the day when the defendant did not appear, your advocate should have pressed for such an interim order, and also for directing the defendants to keep account of the sales etc.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 16 October 2014
The order is ad-interim in nature.
If on the returning date the defendant makes out a case in its favour disputing the case of the petitioner the order of cease and desist would be vacated.
Since after reopening the case is likely to be heard before a new judge, the defendant has good case unless the petitioner is properly represented.
K.K.Ganguly
(Expert) 16 October 2014
1. Who are you in this matter?
2. Did you use the trade mark 'Panghat Sarees' which has been registered by the plaintiff?
3. This order states that the plaintiff has sued you before the court for using their trade mark & that you did not appear before the Court either personally or through your lawyer to defend yourself,
4. Engage a lawyer and show him this order and the notice you have received earlier, if any.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 16 October 2014
Consult your lawyer who is aware of full case file.
Anand Saraf
(Querist) 16 October 2014
Is the defendant liable to close his trade in the name of panghat sarees?
K.K.Ganguly
(Expert) 16 October 2014
1. That will depend on the order to be passed by the Court,
2. Arrange to attend the Court on the next date of hearing.
V R SHROFF
(Expert) 17 October 2014
UR LAWYER WILL EXPLAIN YOU..
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 17 October 2014
The defendant is not directed to close his business. Since the current order is interim in nature the court may alter or modify the same while passing the final order. it is too early to comment on it.a
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 19 October 2014
