Civil Procedure Code, 1908

Order 7 Rules 10 & 11

Plaintiffs "Parshwanath Group" enjoying reputation and goodwill in the trade and general public for last three decades . Defendant "Parsvanath' in respect of identical business

Passing off
Doctrine of "Quia timet action" which means because he fears or apprehends.
Object of the law of passing off is to protect some form of property usually the goodwill of the plaintiff in his business or his goods or his services or in the work which he produces or something of that kind.

HELD
(a) The plaintiffs have made necessary averments in plaint and plaintiffs have satisfied that the plaint fulfills the ingredients of Order 7 Rule 1.. of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs have been able to show and prove how the cause of action has been arisen and how the City Civil Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the Suit. The plaintiffs have also made necessary averments for claiming reliefs in the plaint.
(b) In view of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, particularly Sections 15 to 20 read with judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C. Laxminart Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the plaintiffs have been able to prove that right to sue has arisen within city limits of Ahmedabad.
(c) The plaintiffs' Suit for passing off of trade name and trading style against defendant as quia timet action is maintainable at law.
(d) In view of several decisions cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, this Court has considered only averment made by the plaintiffs in plaint and two advertisements produced by the plaintiffs alongwith the plaint (Exh. 4/21,4/22 (pages 84 & 86) regarding maintaining action of passing off.
(e) In view of the fact that the defendant has published advertisements one in Divya Bhaskar and another in Financial Times which are widely circulated in city of Ahmedabad and plaintiffs have also been able to prove and deception and confusion has arisen within city limits of Ahmedabad, the plaintiffs have been able to prove that cause of action has arisen within city limit of Ahmedabad.
(f) The application made by defendant under Order 7 Rule 10 at Exh. 26 is rejected at law.
(g) The application filed at Exh. 26 by defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 is also rejected in spite of several decisions by the learned counsel for the defendant as all the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the defendant are distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case which I have already discussed above. [Para 35]
Thus, present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is hereby rejected. The impugned order dated 22.12.2006 passed by the City Civil Court No. 9, Ahmedabad below application Exh. 26 in Regular Civil Suit No. 785 of 2006 is hereby confirmed. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. [Para 36]
Patents Act, 1970
Sections 48,64 & 107
As amended in 2003

Registered patent of the plaintiff regarding safety I.V. catheters/cannulae . Exclusive right given to the patent holder to prevent a third party from infringing the patent . However in any suit for infringement of a patent every ground on which the patent may be revoked under section 64 shall is available as a ground for defence . Merely registration of the patent per se does not entitled the plaintiffs to an injunction .
HELD

Patent has been recently registered and is under a serious challenge as to the validity of the patent Therefore validity of Patent not free from doubt . Prayer for an ad interim injunction liable to be rejected.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 47
Preliminary decree. Execution case. Report of Commissioner appointed for valuation of the trade mark.
HELD
On a perusal of the preliminary decree, it is noticeable that there has been direction that the goodwill of the business carried on by the plaintiff and defendants and the stock-in-hand be sold on the premises and that the Commissioner may on the application of any of the parties fix a reserved building for all or any of the lots at such sale and the either of the parties is at liberty to bid at the sale. The learned single Judge has directed that there would be an auction of the trade mark as that is in consonance with the Intention behind the decree. As there has been direction to carry out auction of the goodwill of the business and the real purpose is to sell the property as assets by way of auction and the trade mark having a different existence, there is no bar to put the same in auction. In fact, it is in accord with the decree.
Writ appeal, dismissed.