VERTICE GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED vs M/S SHAVEX
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Decision delivered on: 14.05.2024
+ FAO (COMM) 76/2024 & CM Nos.24820-23/2024
VERTICE GLOBAL PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Appellant
Through: Ms Rashi Bansal, Mr Naveen Kumar, Mr Tesu Gupta and Ms Kriti, Advs.
versus
M/S SHAVEX ….. Respondent
Through: Mr Anirudh Bakhru, Ms Kripa Pandit, Mr Prabhu Tandon, Ms Vijay Laxmi Rathi and Mr Christopher, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL):
CM No.24822/2024
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
FAO (COMM) 76/2024, CM No.24820/2024 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 88 days in filing the appeal], CM No.24821/2024 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief] & CM No.24823/2024 [Application filed on behalf of the appellant for taking on record additional documents]
2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing at this stage itself.
3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.11.2023 whereby the appellant/defendant had been injuncted by the trial court by the ad interim ex parte order. The operative directions contained in paragraph 13 of the order dated 18.11.2023 reads as follows:
13. Accordingly, till next date of hearing, defendant, his individual partners/proprietors, directors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, stockiest, dealers, retailers etc., and all other acting for and on their behalf are restrained from manufacturing, marketing, selling, using, supplying soliciting, displaying advertising, importing exporting or by any other mode or manner dealing with the Impugned Mark SHAVEX or any other trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs trademark SHAVEX in relation to Shaving Blades, Shaving Foam, Alum/Phitkari and related/allied/cognate goods or from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to:
i. Infringement of plaintiff s registered trademark
ii. Passing off and enabling others to pass off their goods and business as that of the plaintiff.
4. It is not in dispute that the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short, CPC] is pending adjudication. It is not in dispute that the application filed by the appellant/defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC is also pending adjudication.
5. In view of this position, the appeal is disposed of, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, given that the aforementioned applications filed by the disputants will be taken up for hearing by the trial court and disposed of. Pending disposal of the aforementioned applications, the interim order dated 18.11.2023 will continue to operate.
5.1 Consequently, pending applications shall stand closed.
6. Needless to add, the trial court will endeavour to decide the aforementioned applications with due expedition.
7. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
AMIT BANSAL, J
MAY 14, 2024
aj
FAO (COMM) 76/2024 Page 3 of 3