Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 24th February, 2020
KBM FOODS PVT LTD. ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Sourabh Kirpal, Mr. Rupesh Sushant Singh, Mr. Pravesh Aggarwal and Mr. Ankit Kaushal, Advs.
Through: Mr. Sagar Chandra, Ms. Srijan Uppal and Ms. Jyotsna Arora, Advs.
151 CPC)
JUDGMENT
1. By this order I shall dispose of the instant I.A. filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC by the plaintiff with the following prayers:- “Therefore in view of the above it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may in the interim, pending the disposal of the instant matter, grant the following interim reliefs - 2020:DHC:1292 CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 2 a) Order of interim injunction restraining the Defendants, its principal officers, family members, servants, agents, dealers, distributors, retailers and anyone acting for and on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or advertising using the impugned products under the mark/logo/label/packaging GAI CHAAP &Cow Device for any spices/masalas or any other mark/logo/label/packaging which in violation to the Plaintiff's rights in the mark/logo/label/packaging GAI CHAAP & COW Device in respect of spices/masala products or any other cognate and allied goods; b) Order of interim injunction restraining the Defendants, its principal officers, family members, servants, agents, dealers, distributors, retailers and anyone acting for and on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or advertising using the impugned products under the mark/logo/label/packaging GAI CHAAP & Cow Device for any spices/masalas or any other mark/logo/label/ packaging which in violation to the Plaintiff's Copyrights in the label/packaging GAI CHAAP & COW Device; c) Pass any other ex parte ad interim orders, in terms of the above; d) Pass any other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 3
2. It is the case of the plaintiff and so contended by Mr. Saurabh Kirpal that the plaintiff is indulged in the business of manufacturing and sale of Spices under its well-known trademarks “GAI CHAAP” and “COW (device)” since 1969. The plaintiff bona fide adopted the said trademarks in 1969 through its predecessor in title, which was a partnership firm by the name of Karol Bagh Masala Suppliers Company (KBMSC) in respect of its high-quality Spices / goods.
3. The plaintiff's aforesaid predecessor initially had two partners: 1) Om Prakash Aggarwal (OPA) and 2) Kishan Chand Gupta, vide Partnership Deed dated April 22, 1969. OPA has three sons: 1) Dinesh Kumar Aggarwal (DKA); 2) Sanjay Aggarwal (SA) and 3) Vikas Aggarwal (VA). On October 29, 1995, Kishan Chand Gupta retired from the said partnership firm and on October 30, 1995, DKA and SA were inducted into the aforesaid partnership firm.
4. In 2001, a company by the name of KBM Spices Pvt. Ltd. (now known as M/s KBM Foods Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff herein) was incorporated. The partners of the partnership firm OPA, SA and DKA became Directors of the said company. Thereafter, in the year 2002 the said Partnership firm by virtue of Dissolution Deed dated January 23, 2002 was dissolved and its complete rights, assets, liabilities and business were succeeded by the plaintiff including its trademark rights, know-how and goodwill. According to Mr. Kirpal, the main object of the plaintiff Company as stated in the Memorandum of Association was to acquire and take over the CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 4 running business of the said partnership firm. He stated that all the trademarks applications of the plaintiff's predecessor firm were assigned to the plaintiff vide Assignment deed dated January 30,
2002.
5. In the year 2000, members of the Aggarwal family had taken over the defendant No. 2 Company in their individual capacity, with the partnership firm as well as the plaintiff playing no role in it. In 2004 to maintain family peace, it was agreed between the Aggarwal family members that GAI CHAAP and its goodwill with respect to Spices will be the sole property of plaintiff; with respect to Besan and Chana dal it will be the sole property of M/s Iskon Global Pvt Ltd. and with respect to mustard oil it will be the sole property of M/s Radha Kishan Gobind Ram Ltd., defendant No. 2 herein.
6. To honour this agreement, on September 01, 2004, SA resigned from plaintiff Company and defendant no. 2 Company as a Director. DKA also retired from M/s Iskon Global Pvt. Ltd. and defendant No. 2 Company as Director and VA was inducted into defendant No. 2 Company as a Director. OPA remained as the Director and authorized signatory of all the three aforesaid companies. Mr. Kirpal has laid stress on the fact that all these changes inter-se the aforesaid companies were done on the same date i.e. September 01, 2004.
7. It is his submission that thirteen days after the aforesaid changes, inter se the companies, the aforesaid agreement was formalized in writing on September 13, 2004 by virtue of which a CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 5 written Family Agreement was duly executed. He stated that the Agreement is clear that the rights over the trademark GAI CHAAP with respect to Spices will remain with the plaintiff only. Defendant No. 2 has in its written statement itself clearly claimed that till the year 2011, VA, Director of defendant no. 2 was not very active in the family business, and hence would not have personal knowledge of the events prior to 2011, and thus cannot testify with regard to the same. Mr. Kirpal stated that the parties to the said Agreement had acted and made trademark applications to the Trademark Registry according to the aforesaid family agreement. M/s Iskon Global Private limited applied for the trademark GAI CHAAP only for Besan. The defendant no. 2 first only applied for trademark GAI CHAAP (LABEL) for class 29 for goods including edible oil, on June 21, 2004. It very recently applied for JEE OM JEE GAI CHAAP (Label) for red chili powder in class 30 on May 15, 2017, which has been opposed by the plaintiff. He stated that the plaintiff s current audited turnover for its Spices product under the trademark GAI CHAAP and COW (Device) is more than `84 crores, while defendant no. 2's current audited turnover as per its own claim is approx. `7 crores for its wheat, oil and Spices products combined.
8. It is his submission that conduct of defendant no. 2 has been dishonest. He stated that while defendant no. 2 in its written statement is claiming to be manufacturing Spices under the trademark GAI CHAAP since the year 2001-2002, on the other hand in several of its own documents and official documents, it has claimed and represented itself to be indulged in business of various goods except Spices, such as: (a) its own Balance Sheets for the CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 6 assessment years 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2012- 2013, 2013-2014; (b) Form DVAT 16 submitted by defendant no.2 to the VAT department from the year 2014-2016; (c) Its advertisement dated August 25, 2014; (d) Office of Director of the Income Tax (Investigation) - II's proposal of centralization of M/s KBM Spice group of cases dated March 07, 2005 and (e) Income Tax department’s assessment order dated December 09, 2009. According to him, despite the existence of the aforesaid documents, the defendant no. 2 had played fraud upon this Court by claiming to be using trademark GAI CHAAP with respect to Spices from the year 2000 in its suit bearing no. CS (COMM) 28/2018 filed against a third party, which was subsequently settled by defendant no. 2 in a mala fide manner upon realizing its fraud being exposed. In substance, he stated that defendant no. 2 has claimed different usage date of trademark GAI CHAAP with respect to Spices in different documents thereby taking contradictory stand and lying on oath.
9. He stated that defendant no. 2 has itself produced no document prior to November 29, 2014, which can prove that it has indulged in the business of Spices under the trademark GAI CHAAP and COW (Device), thereby clearly showing that aforesaid family agreement was acted upon by all the parties and that defendant no. 2 has no right over the trademark "GAI CHAAP" and "COW (device)" with respect to Spices. He pressed for the relief as prayed for in the application.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Sagar Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the defendant No.2 had also given a factual matrix of CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 7 the case, inasmuch as, in the year 1969 Partnership Firm M/s Karol Bagh Masala Suppliers Company (KBMSC) was started by OPA & one Kishan Chand Gupta carrying on business of Spices, edible oils and flour. In 1972 OPA adopted the mark GAI CHAAP and COW (Device). In 1986 Jagdamba Industries (Proprietorship of OPA) started manufacturing Mustard Oil under TM Gai Chaap and Cow Logo, which manufacturing stopped in 1992. In 1996 Kishan Gupta retired as partner of KBMSC and DKA and SA inducted in KBMSC. In 2000 OPA took over entire shareholding of defendant No.2 Company and started manufacturing Spices & installed machines for grinding of Spices. Iscon Global Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on August 16, 2001 by OPA & SA to manufacture and sell Besan and Chana Dal under GAI CHAAP/Cow Logo. KBM Spices Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on November 21, 2001 with OPA, DKA and SA as Directors. In 2004, defendant No.2 started manufacturing Mustard Oil under the mark GAI CHAAP/Cow Logo. On September 01, 2004 VA was inducted as a Director and SA retired from KBM Spices Pvt. Ltd. DKA resigned as Director of defendant No.2 but was involved in the affairs of company as a shareholder till 2014. On February 09, 2005 IT Investigation conducted on the family companies including but not limited to plaintiff / defendant No.2 and Iscon Global, where KBMSC is listed as an Assessee. Plaintiff applied for registration of mark KBM in Class 30 for Spices on September 11, 2007. In 2010-2011, VA actively started participating in business of defendant No.2. From the year 2012 onwards, plaintiff used the mark KBM prominently and Gai Chaap was reduced to a negligible font. In December 2013, CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 8 OPA was a majority shareholder in defendant No.2 and plaintiff. OPA decided to adopt and launch JEE OM JEE GAI CHAAP / Cow Logo under defendant No.2 for retail of Spices vide Board Resolution dated March 24, 2014 (also signed by OPA as Director). VA was authorized to complete formalities related to Agmark for ground Spices by the name of JEE OM JEE GAI CHAAP. Pursuant thereto Agmark application was filed by defendant No.2 for Spices for the mark JEE OM JEE GAI CHAAP on July 23, 2014.
11. On October 13, 2014, plaintiff filed TM application for KBM GAI CHAAP Label in Class 29 for various goods including Mustard Oil. Name of KBM Spices Pvt. Ltd. was changed to KBM Foods Pvt. Ltd. on May 18, 2015. Plaintiff again filed TM application for the mark GAI CHAAP in Class 29, 35 and 39 for various goods and services relating to Mustard Oil on June 18,
2015. According to him, the plaintiff alleges that they came across advertisement of defendant No.2
JEE OM JEE GAI CHAAP masala and Spices in July, 2017. He refers to the fact that the plaintiff filed an opposition against defendant No.2's TM in Class 30 but did not mention about any of the alleged Agreements. He opposes the prayer by stating that the plaint does not disclose various material facts and portrays defendant No.2 as a rank infringer. The alleged Agreement for Succession, Assessment Deed, Dissolution Deed have not been disclosed in the plaint and have been filed with the replication thereby demonstrating that the same is an afterthought. According to Mr. Chandra, DKA was a shareholder in defendant No.2 till 2014 and ought to have known about the business of Spices of defendant No.2. He also stated that OPA was shareholder CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 9 of defendant No.2 till 2015 and a Director till 2016 and also a majority shareholder of plaintiff, which fact has been concealed. He also stated that defendant No.2 is an Associated Company and loan was advanced by defendant No.2 to the plaintiff. In this regard, he relies on the financial statement of defendant No.2 of 2012 and
2013. In any case, he states that the alleged family agreement of 2004 was not signed by VA, though he was inducted as a Director on September 01, 2004. He also submitted that there is an honest and bona fide use of the mark GAI CHAAP by defendant No.2 as joint proprietor of the trademark and with the consent of OPA. In this regard, he reiterates his submission that the trademark GAI CHAAP was adopted by OPA in and around 1972 and has been in continuous use since then for goods being masala, edible oil, atta etc. by the family members through various firms/companies incorporated &founded by them with OPA. The trademark GAI CHAAP is a family trademark and is the legacy of OPA. He also stated that defendant No.2 was in the business of manufacturing Spices since 2000. Defendant No.2 in 2004 started retailing mustard Oil under the mark GAI CHAAP and further in 2013-2014 started using the mark JEE OM JEE GAI CHAAP for retail of Spices as suggested by OPA and applied for registration for the same. In this regard, he stated that OPA was a shareholder in defendant No.2 in 2013-2014 & Director till 2016 and was also a shareholder of plaintiff at the same time. Thus, OPA and plaintiff were aware of the use of the mark JEE OM JEE GAI CHAAP for Spices by defendant No.2 in 2013-2014 and did not object to the same and OPA encouraged defendant No.2 to use the said mark for Spices CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 10 since plaintiff was using the mark KBM prominently and made GAI CHAAP significantly smaller in the mark. He also highlighted the fact that the Board Resolution dated March 24, 2014 signed by OPA vide which VA was authorized to complete formalities related to Agmark for ground Spices by the name of JEE OMJEE GAI CHAAP.
12. He has, in support of his submission relied upon the following documents.
(i) Letter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi dated August 23,
(ii) Indemnity Bond dated August 20, 2002 of OPA and witness of the said Bond is DKA;
(iii) Sales Tax Registration dated November 30, 2004 in favour of defendant No.2 showing re-sale of kirana items;
(iv) On September 09, 2005 Inventory of goods found during IT
(v) Certificate of Importer-Exporter Code dated May 22, 2007;
(vi) Affidavit of OPA dated September 02, 2009 stating that defendant No.2 is the manufacturing unit of Spices and mustard oil;
(vii) Memorandum for Manufacturing Enterprise dated January
07, 2010 acknowledgement of defendant No.2 business from Office of Commissioner of Industries since September 10, 2004. CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 11
(viii) Notice from Food Safety Officer dated December 09, 2014
(ix) Invoice for promotion of Gai Chaap Masala of the years
(x) Balance Sheet dated September 04, 14 of 31st March, 2014
(xi) Form C of Department of Food Safety dated September 26,
2016;
(xii) Balance Sheets of defendant No.2 of the years 2014-15,
(xiii) Form C of Central Sales Tax of defendant No.2 showing
13. He submitted that the conduct of the plaintiff is mala fide. In this regard, it is his submission that the plaintiff filed application for KBM GAI CHAAP (Label) in Class 29 on October 13, 2014 and GAI CHAAP in Class 29 on June 18, 2015 for goods including Oil and GAI CHAAP in Class 39 on June 18, 2015 for packaging and storage of Mustard Oil and GAI CHAAP in Class 35 on June 18, 15 which also includes Mustard Oil. He stated that the plaintiff filed opposition against defendant No.2’s TM JEE OM JEE Label under Class 30 in November, 2017. No averment of alleged family agreement has been made therein. Plaintiff’s Agmark license/certification was cancelled on September 28, 2016 and FIR was lodged against them. He also highlighted the fact that the suit CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 12 was filed by plaintiff only when VA filed partition suits in Gurugram District Court in July, 2017.
14. Mr. Chandra has also highlighted the fact that plaintiff has been using the KBM prominently and the initial TM applications are filed for the mark KBM only. Applications for the mark GAI CHAAP filed recently in 2014-15 except one in 2010. Plaintiff stopped using the mark GAI CHAAP in a stand-alone manner and started using KBM Gai Chaap with more prominence to KBM and Gai Chaap's font reduced to negligible. Plaintiff did not prosecute the TM applications filed by OPA and KBMSC applied in 1996/97.
15. Mr. Chandra has also taken a plea of delay and acquiescence, inasmuch as OPA was a shareholder in defendant No.2 till 2015 and Director till 2016 and DKA was director till 2004 and shareholder till 2014. Defendant No.2 is manufacturing Spices since 2000, manufacturing and retailing mustard oil since 2004 and retailing Spices under the TM JEE OM JEE GAICHAAP since
2014. Plaintiff and defendant No.2 supply goods to common traders Ram Bilas Pawan Kumar & Rewari Kiryana Store to state that these facts clearly show that the plaintiff knew the factum of the defendant No.2 using the trademark JEE OM JEE GAICHAAP (Cow device) but had not objected to it, since then and the suit having been filed in the year 2017, surely hit by delay and laches.
16. In the last, it is his submission that the alleged family agreement on which reliance has been placed by the plaintiff, is not in consonance with the conduct of the parties. He submitted, in the CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 13 given facts, the interim relief as sought for should not be granted and the application be dismissed.
17. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, and noting the submissions made by them, it is noted that KBMSC a partnership firm was dissolved and a Company KBMSC Spices Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated (now KBM Foods Private Limited). The partners became the Directors of the Company (plaintiff). On the partnership being dissolved, the rights and liabilities including the trademark “GAI CHAAP” and “COW (device)” were taken over by the Company (plaintiff). This is clearly seen from the Agreement of Succession of Business dated January 23, 2002. It appears that in the year 2002, OPA and members of the Aggarwal family had taken over the defendant No.2, Company.
18. It is the case of the defendant No.2 that it started manufacturing / trading in Spices. A third Company M/s Iskon Global Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated on August 06, 2001, by OPA and SA. It was the contention of Mr. Kirpal, that to maintain family peace a family settlement dated September 13, 2004 was entered upon by the above three Companies through their Directors wherein it was decided that the plaintiff Company shall manufacture / trade in Masalas in the brand name of GAI CHAAP with COW (Device). Similarly, M/s Iskon Global Pvt. Ltd. shall manufacture / trade in Basen and Channa Dal and defendant No.2 Company shall manufacture / trade in mustard oil.
19. I may state here that this agreement has been referred to by the plaintiff in para 4 of the plaint. The defendant No.2 Company CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 14 deny the agreement as being forged and fabricated. Suffice would it be to state that it is the case of the defendant No.2 itself that VA started participating in business of defendant No.2 from the year 2010-11. It was the plea of Mr. Kirpal that VA may not be having any personal knowledge of happenings prior to that period.
20. It is also the case of Mr. Kirpal that in view of the family settlement referred to above, the SA resigned from the plaintiff Company. Similarly, defendant No.1 also resigned from M/s Iskon Global Pvt. Ltd. and VA was inducted into defendant No.2 Company as the Director. This aspect that VA became Director of defendant No.2 is conceded by Mr. Chandra in his arguments. It is also noted that OPA was the common Director in all the three Companies.
21. It is the case of Mr. Kirpal that parties to the family settlement had acted and made trademark applications to the Trademark Registry according to the settlement, inasmuch as M/s Iskon Global Pvt Ltd. applied for GAI CHAAP only for Basen. The defendant No.2 had in 2004 applied for trademark GAI CHAAP (label) in class 29 for goods including edible oils, but very recently on May 15, 2017 the defendant No.2 applied for JEE OM JEE GAI CHAAP (label) for red chili powder as well, which is contrary to the family settlement.
22. It is the case of the defendant No.2 that in 2014 it started using the mark JEE OM JEE GAI CHAAP for retail of Spices, as suggested by OPA and accordingly applied for registration. In this regard, reliance was placed by Mr. Chandra on the Board resolution CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 15 dated March 28, 2014 and also Agmark application dated July 23, 2014 of defendant No.2. In fact, I note that allegation and counter allegations have been made by the parties against each other that the opposite party has made applications for registration with the Trademark Registry for Mark GAI CHAAP in mustard oil by plaintiff and Spices by defendant No.2.
23. Mr. Kirpal had denied that plaintiff is manufacturing and trading in mustard oil. He also does not deny the fact that an application has been filed by the plaintiff for registration of trademark GAI CHAAP in class 29, mustard oil. Mr. Kirpal during his submissions has stated that the plaintiff cannot use trademark GAI CHAAP with COW (Device) for mustard oil. He stated that the claim of the plaintiff is only with regard to illegal use of trademark GAI CHAAP with COW, for Spices by the defendant NO.2.
24. It was the submission of Mr. Chandra that OPA after taking over the defendant No.2 in the year 2002 has been manufacturing and trading in Spices also. In this regard, Mr. Chandra had relied upon the documents like; letter of MCD; indemnity bond dated February 28, 2002 of OPA; Sales Tax Registration dated November 30, 2004 in favour of defendant No.2 showing resale of kirana items; inventory as found during Income Tax raid showing Spices; affidavit of OPA stating, defendant No.2 manufacturing Spices and mustard oil.
25. On the other hand, Mr. Kirpal had relied upon certain documents of the defendant No.2 like; (i) balance sheet for CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 16 assessment years 2008-09; 2009-10; 2012-13 and 2013-14; (ii) advertisement dated August 25, 2014; and (iii) Income Tax assessment order dated December 09, 2009 to contend that the defendant No.2 had represented itself to be indulging in business of various goods excepts Spices. In fact, it was his submission that the earliest document produced by defendant No.2 which can prove that it has indulged in the business of Spices under the trademark GAI CHAAP and COW (Device) is of November 29, 2014.
26. The issue needs to be seen and decided, on facts existing post 2004 as much reliance was placed by Mr. Kirpal on the family settlement executed between the companies in the year 2004, which was apparently signed by OPA, DKA and SA on behalf of the companies. I may state here that defendant No.2 has denied the document.
27. That apart, it is also a conceded case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.2 has been manufacturing and trading in Spices post
2014. If that be so, the period between 2004-14 attains significance. Mr. Chandra had relied upon the documents like; (i) copy of certificate of import exporters code issued by the Ministry of Commerce to defendant No.2 dated May 22, 2007; (ii) copy of certificate of Weight and Measurement Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated January 20, 2008; (iii) copy of affidavit of OM Prakas Aggarwal to the Delhi Pollution Committee dated October 06, 2009; (iv) copy of documents / inventory prepared during the Income Tax raid dated February 09, 2005; (v) copy of certificate of Sales Tax Registration under the Central Sales Tax Rule 1957 to CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 17 defendant No.2 dated February 22, 2005; (vi) copy of acknowledgement dated January 07, 2010 sent from the Office of Commissioner of Industries; (vii) print out from whois.com showing registration of defendant No.2’s website since May 04, 2011; (viii) print out from https://web.archivee.org of defendant No.2’s website from the year 2011-12 and thereafter, showing use of mark GAI CHAAP for Spices.
28. The documents relied upon by Mr. Kirpal and Mr. Chandra in support of their contention does not appeal to the Court. The documents so relied primarily are declaration before the authorities which may not necessarily mean the actual sale of Spices / Product that too with the mark GAI CHAAP and COW (Device).
29. So, the declaration as filed by the defendant No.2 itself becomes relevant. The earliest application of the defendant no.2 in class 30 goods for registration of GAI CHAAP was in the year 2013 wherein the user date claimed by defendant No.2 is 2010. In subsequent, applications filed by defendant No.2 on February 14, 2014 and June 15, 2017 the user date claimed is also 2010. But I find, no invoice of the year 2010 has been placed on record by the defendant No.2 to show usage of mark GAI CHAAP with COW (Device). Rather, the earliest invoice placed by the defendant No.2 on record showing sale of Haldi Powder JEE OM JEE GAI CHAAP is dated August 02, 2014 (page 218 of the convenience file). So, it must be concluded that w.e.f. 2014, the defendant No.2 has been using the mark GAI CHAAP in class 30 goods. CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 18
30. Further, it has to be noted that SA the third brother has never challenged the family agreement / settlement between the Companies nor anything has been shown by the counsel for the defendant No.2 that he also expanded his business under the trademark GAI CHAAP with respect to the business if the plaintiff and the defendant No.2.
31. The issue would be as the defendant No.2 been using the mark GAI CHAAP with COW (Device) since 2014, the filing of the suit in the year 2018 would disentitle the plaintiff, the prayer in the present application. The answer to that question has to be in the negative, in view of the position of law of the Supreme Court in the case of Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd. and Ors. v. Sudhir Bhatia and Ors., MANU/SC/0186/2004, wherein the Supreme Court has held mere delay in bringing action is not sufficient to defeat the grant of injunction where it prima facie appears that adoption of the mark was itself dishonest.
32. In view of the above discussion and the fact, that the plaintiff has been using the mark GAI CHAAP with COW (Device) for Spices since 2004, which aspect is not denied by the defendant No.2 which is using the said mark from 2014, that is from a later date, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction. Accordingly, this Court taking on record the submission made by Mr. Kirpal that the plaintiff shall not indulge in manufacturing / sale of Mustard oil with Mark GAI CHAAP and COW (Device) restrain the defendant No.2 its principal officers, family members, servants, agents, dealers, CS(COMM) 51/2018 Page 19 distributors, retailers and anyone acting for and on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or advertising using the impugned products under the mark / logo / label / packaging GAI CHAAP & Cow Device for any Spices / Masalas or any other mark / logo / label / packaging which in violation to the Plaintiff's rights in the mark / logo / label / packaging GAI CHAAP & COW Device in respect of Spices / Masala products or any other cognate and allied goods.
33. The application is disposed of.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
FEBRUARY 24, 2020