FACTS OF THE CASE
Vikrant Chemico Industries Private Limited filed a suit for trademark infringement and passing off against Jaideep Rastogi asserting that his use of ‘REAL DOCTOR CLEAN’ infringes upon the plaintiff’s trademarks ‘DOCTOR BRAND’ and ‘DOCTOR BRAND PHENYLE’.
The case revolved around the plaintiff’s application under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, seeking summary decree due to the defendant’s failure to file a written statement within the stipulated time as required under Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC was cited before Trial Court emphasizing the consequences of such failure and the discretion of the court in pronouncing a summary decree.
The defendant presented a comprehensive response to the plaintiff’s application under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Defendant contested that the plaintiff’s claim on the word ‘DOCTOR’, arguing the lack of evidence supporting exclusive rights or proof of goodwill and reputation for passing off. The defendant asserted that numerous other parties use similar marks and that ‘DOCTOR’ is a common term.
Furthermore, the defendant questioned the court’s jurisdiction, alleging misrepresentation by the plaintiff regarding incorporation location and the scope of the dispute. Defendant highlighted the concealment of prior trademark opposition proceedings contested between Plaintiff and defendant and disputed the plaintiff’s claim of discovering the defendant’s goods only in 2022, asserting it as false.
The defendant urged the court to exercise discretion and not rush to issue a decree without thorough evaluation of the facts. Defendant cited legal precedents such as Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan to support its arguments against decreeing solely based on deemed admissions, advocating for a fair and comprehensive examination of the issues.
Order and Analysis
The District Court, in its order on 29 January, 2024, meticulously reviewed the application, acknowledging the defendant’s failure to submit a written statement within the specified timeframe. Despite the defendant’s default, the District Court, drawing on legal precedents like Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, emphasized the need to resolve any disputed factual issues before issuing a summary decree. Although both parties attempted mediation, it proved unsuccessful. Finding the plaintiff’s evidence insufficient and noting discrepancies in the Plaintiff’s pleadings, the court dismissed the application, stressing the importance of substantiating claims with adequate evidence.
The Plaintiff preferred a civil revision petition against the order of Learned District Judge before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. The High Court, in its 07 March, 2024 order, upheld the District Judge’s decision, citing established principles from cases like Asma Lateef & Anr v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors and Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan. It reiterated that judgment cannot solely rely on the defendant’s failure to file a written statement, emphasizing the plaintiff’s responsibility to support its case with evidence.
Both courts stressed the importance of evidence and procedural fairness in adjudicating the plaintiff’s claims, emphasizing the need for a thorough examination of facts before passing a decree.
The Defendant was represented by Mark Shield before Hon’ble District as well as Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
 263 of 2021){kind=link}