- (1.) The myriad hurdles that the defendants initially presented before the substance of the plaintiff's claim in the suit could be assessed have been somewhat removed by the plaintiff having withdrawn a previous suit that it instituted in Goa. The defendants, however, say that notwithstanding their application under Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code for stay of the trial of the present suit having been rendered infructuous, the averments in the petition relating thereto should be taken into account while considering the propriety of making further orders in favour of the plaintiff.
(2.) GA No. 3930 of 2007 is the plaintiff's first interlocutory application in this suit for alleged infringement by the defendants of the registered trademarks of the plaintiff. GA No. 3937 of 2007 is the defendants' application for stay of the suit on the ground that a previous suit, albeit for passing off and not for infringement, had been instituted by the plaintiff against the second defendant in Goa. Since the Goa suit has been withdrawn on December 6, 2008, the orders sought in GA No. 3937 of 2007 are no longer available. GA No. 3961 of 2007 is the plaintiff's second interlocutory application, seeking the appointment of a receiver. GA No. 1393 of 2008 is the defendants' application under Section 124 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The defendants submit that in view of the rectification proceedings carried by the defendants before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, GA No. 1393 of 2008 should be adjourned sine die pending the disposal of the matter by the Appellate Board.
(3.) Upon the first interlocutory application being moved, the plaintiff obtained an ex parte order on September 28, 2007 in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. Prayer (a) restrains the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's marks 'Putzmeister' and 'PM.' It, however, appears that the plaintiff has a registration in respect of the word mark 'Putzmeister' but only a logo registration in respect of 'PM' written in a distinctive style. By an order of October 8, 2007 it was clarified that the order dated September 28, 2007 (though mistakenly referred to in the later order as September 25, 2007) would not prevent the second defendant from using its corporate name, Putzmeister India Private Ltd. But the order restrained both defendants from using the logo 'PM' in connection with their business. The first defendant continued to remain injuncted from infringing the plaintiff's mark 'Putzmeister.' It is such order of September 28, 2007 as modified by the order dated October 8, 2007 that has been subsisting in favour of the plaintiff. On the plaintiff's application for appointment of a receiver joint special officers were appointed by an order dated December 24, 2007, but the plaintiff has not really pressed for the appointment of a receiver at the final hearing.;