Justice J. B. Pardiwala, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
Defendant Can Put Queries To Plaintiff Who Affirms Trademark Infringement Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court was dealing with a matter where the infringement of the brand name was the foundation of the relief claimed by the plaintiff in the suit.
The Supreme Court has held that when the plaintiff affirms trademark infringement, even if the written statement is not on record, the defendant can put queries to the plaintiff on the document to substantiate the time from which such brand name was used by the plaintiff.
The issue which arose before the Apex Court was whether the defendant (appellant) was entitled to put a question with respect to the brand name asserted by the plaintiff. The infringement of the brand name was the foundation of the relief of damages claimed by the plaintiff in the suit.
The Division Bench of Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “When the plaintiff affirms trademark infringement, even if the written statement is not on record, the defendant is entitled to put the question which queries the plaintiff on the document, to substantiate the time from which such brand name was used by the plaintiff.”
Senior Advocate Ankur Chhibber represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the trade-dress used by the plaintiff in its product and a declaration that the two trademarks were the exclusive marks of the plaintiff within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) read with Section 11 (6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The contention raised was that the defendant’s written statement not being on record, he was not entitled to put that question. The High Court, finding the question of whether the defendant could put a question with respect to the brand name asserted by the plaintiff to be a purely factual question beyond the permissible cross-examination, expunged it from the record. It was noted that the defendant’s written statement was not taken on record.
Reasoning
The Bench took notice of the affidavit of the plaintiff accompanying the prayer for injunction which specifically spoke of the defendant using the brand name of the plaintiff with a similar packaging/trade-dress, which was identical to the unique trade dress and packaging of the plaintiff’s product. The Bench noted that the averments were also with respect to infringement of the plaintiff’s registered copyright and trademark.
Holding that the defendant was entitled to put the question to the plaintiff to substantiate the time from which such brand name was used by the plaintiff, the Bench reversed the impugned order of the High Court and directed the trial to be proceeded with after recalling the plaintiff and recording his answer.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench clarified, “We make it clear that we have not made any observations on the merits of the matter and the parties would be entitled to agitate their respective contentions in the trial.”
Cause Title: Shabu KN Achary v. Dharampal Premchand Limited (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 819)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Ankur Chhibber, Advocates Nikunj Arora, Shivam Sachdeva, Aishwarya Sharma, AOR Ashish Pandey
Respondent: Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta, Advocate Prachi Agarwal, AOR Vikas Singh Jangra, Advocate Medha Singh