Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the petition was filed in respect of an ex parte ad-interim order passed by the High Court on 8th October 2020 restraining the defendant from selling or distributing its goods under the mark ‘Duro Touch’ or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ trademark ‘Duroply’. Thereafter, the defendant argued that the ex parte ad-interim order of injunction be vacated and order was reserved for judgment on 15th January 2021 and with the interim order, the order reserving the judgement in the case had also been cancelled.
Arguments Advanced
The Counsels for both the parties offered to furnish undertakings/affidavits from their respective clients before the court, containing an assurance that the parties have no objection to the judgment being delivered by this Court.
Court’s Observation
The Hon’ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya recalled the order found that releasing the matter was the best and only course of action since she had appeared for one party in relation to the same trademark on which the party claimed exclusivity in present proceedings. The Court further remarked that the Purity preservation process for dissemination of justice is a collective responsibility that rests both on the Court and counsels, advocates-on-record and attorneys.
Furthermore, a litigant should never be under the impression to control or influence the outcome of adjudication by factors unconnected to the litigation and least of all by a professional connection which a Court may have to the matter. The Court further, observed that it is unfortunate that the two orders from 2005 and 2006 were found to deliver the case’s judgment and yet, none of the two orders was pointed out to by counsel before despite the matter being heard on several occasions.
Judgment
The Hon’ble Court ordered to recall the order of injunction dated 8th October 2020, since the petition for interim relief contained averments in relation to the proceedings where the two orders were already been passed. The order dated 15th January 2021 by which GA 2 of 2020 was held to be reserved. Also, the court clarified that as the order of injunction has continued from 8th October 2020, the effect of the order to the extent of the recalling part would remain in abeyance for a period of seven days to enable the plaintiffs to apply for appropriate orders.
Click here to view full judgment.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
