Jury Solve

BANYAN TREE HOLDINGS LIMITED versus M/S ANGSANA THAI SPA & ORS

HomeCase StudyBANYAN TREE HOLDINGS LIMITED versus M/S ANGSANA THAI SPA & ORS
19 October 2023
0 Comments
By Jury Solve
Introduction :
The Plaintiff - Banyan Tree Holdings Limited has filed the present suit seeking protection of its mark and name ‘ANGSANA’ used in respect of hospitality services as also spa, etc. The Plaintiff’s marks are registered both as a device and logo mark, as well as a word mark, since the year 2000 in Classes 41, 42 and 43. Plaintiff has secured several international trade mark registrations for ‘ANGSANA’ marks. The details of the Plaintiff’s international trade mark registrations are set out below:
Facts of the Case:
The facts, involve a dispute over a trademark, where the Plaintiff is seeking an injunction to protect its mark. The Plaintiff filed the present suit seeking an injunction restraining the Defendants from using an identical mark and logo, albeit, in a different color combination as . The Plaintiff is aggrieved by the use of the mark and name ‘M/s. Angsana Thai Spa’ by the Defendant No. 1- Mr. Venkatesh, who is the sole proprietor of the spa. The same is located in RMV Extension, Near Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka. The Defendant No.2 - Mr. Umesh Kumar also registered a domain name being ‘www.angsanathaispabangalore.com’, which according to the Plaintiff violates its rights in the mark ‘ANGSANA’. Defendant No. 3-FastDomain Inc. is the domain name registrar for the domain name ‘angsanathaispabangalore.com’ The WHOIS details of the domain has been filed with the Plaintiff’s documents. The details of the domain name would show that the same was registered on 10th October, 2020. The Plaintiff has been compelled to approach the Court for relief.
Arguments of the Plaintiff:

The Plaintiff has approached the Court seeking an injunction and protection of its mark. To support its prayer for a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), The Plaintiff has placed reliance on the following judgments to support its prayer for summary judgment under Order XIII-A CPC:
Aktiebolaget Volvo v. Volvo White Paints Industries [MANU/DE/0593/2023] [2023 (94) PTC 267(Del)].
Deere and Company v. Jitender Kumar Gaur [MANU/DE/4774/2022] (296 (2023) DLT 73).
Ebay Inc. v. Mohd. Waseem T/AS Shopibay [MANU/DE/5498/2022] 2022/DHC /004918
Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd v. Kunwer Sachdev (2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764 These cases are cited to establish precedent and persuade the Court to grant a summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
These cases are cited to establish precedent and persuade the Court to grant a summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.

Observations of the Court:

The Court has made an observation in the case of Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd., nothing the intent behind incorporating the summary judgment procedure in the Commercial Court Act, 2015. The Court acknowledges that this procedure is meant to expedite the disposal of commercial disputes and that a full trial is not always necessary if the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim.

 

Conclusion:

The Court is convinced that the present is a fit case for grant of a decree of permanent injunction in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendants in terms of Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as amended by Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022. Further, since there is no written statement(s) on behalf of Defendants, despite service, the Court is empowered to pass a judgement in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC.

View full Judgment BANYAN TREE HOLDINGS LIMITED versus M/S ANGSANA THAI SPA & ORS

Tags:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Article

No next Article to show!