TTK Prestige Limited v. Baghla Sanitaryware Private Limited & Ors.

[CS(COMM) 281/2021]

Bench - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal

Date of Judgment - 07th February 2024

Introduction The Delhi High Court's recent dismissal of TTK Prestige's plea in the Trademark Infringement suit against Baghla Sanitaryware sheds light on the stringent timelines set by the Commercial Courts Act. The court, emphasizing the Act's aim for speedy resolution of high-value commercial disputes, stressed the significance of adhering to deadlines outlined in the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The rejection of TTK Prestige's request to introduce additional documents was grounded in the court's interpretation of Order XI Rule 1(1) of CPC, emphasizing the necessity for Plaintiffs to establish their case promptly. The court highlighted the Plaintiff’s responsibility, as a longstanding business entity, to vigilantly safeguard its trademarks, implying a lesson in diligence for companies dealing with intellectual property disputes.

Factual Background

·????? Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging infringement of the registered trademark 'PRESTIGE' and its logo, as well as copyright infringement of the logo, by the Defendants.

·????? Plaintiff claimed continuous, extensive, and exclusive use of the 'PRESTIGE' trademark in relation to kitchenware, including pressure cookers, in India since 1955.

·????? In 1999, the Plaintiff adopted a distinctive logo with an arc, and in 2006, they conceived a label/logo with 'PRESTIGE' written in white lettering on a red background with a black arc.

·????? 'PRESTIGE' serves as both the house mark and trademark of the Plaintiff.

·????? Defendants, engaged in manufacturing and sale of bath and kitchen fittings, were accused of using the 'PRESTIGE' trademark and providing warranty in that name.

·????? The Plaintiff discovered the 'PRESTIGE' trademark registered in the name of Mr. Surinder Kumar Baghla, a partner of Defendant no.4 in Class 11.

·????? On June 4, 2021, an exparte ad interim injunction was granted, restraining Defendants from selling, offering for sale, or advertising any related goods under the Plaintiff’s logo.

·????? On July 26, 2021, Defendants claimed use of the 'PRESTIGE' trademark since 2005 in their written statement.

·????? On September 7, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a replication denying the Defendants' 2005 claim.

·????? On August 29, 2022, Defendants filed an application to place additional documents (invoices for 20122016) on record.

·????? On February 27, 2023, the court allowed the application, citing that the trial had not commenced.

·????? On July 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed an additional application to submit documents purportedly in rebuttal.

Arguments put forward

By Plaintiff’s Counsel

The Counsel for the Plaintiff contended that the Defendants, in their initial written statement, failed to submit supporting documents. Subsequently, in August 2022, via I.A. 14694/2022, the Defendants sought to introduce additional documents, a year after filing the written statement. Despite the delay, the court, on February 27, 2023, permitted this through reliance on a Supreme Court precedent and the fact that the trial had not begun. The Plaintiff’s Counsel argued that this justified their application in July 2023, asserting it was essential for rebutting the belatedly submitted Defendant documents and should be allowed under the same parameters applied earlier. Additionally, the Plaintiff’s Counsel highlighted the challenge in accessing records predating 2007 when the suit was filed, clarifying that relevant documents from a prior suit emerged only after the Defendant's statement. Relying on Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC, the Counsel argued that the "reasonable cause" test for non-disclosure was met, emphasizing that as the trial had not started, there would be no prejudice to the Defendants.

The Plaintiff’s Counsel relied on legal precedents to support their contention regarding the admissibility of additional documents. They cited the case of Sugandhi & Anr. v. P. Rajkumar (2020)[1], wherein the Supreme Court, while addressing an application in a civil suit under Order VIII Rule 1-A (3) of the CPC, emphasized that procedural violations should not impede substantial justice, especially when such violations don't seriously prejudice the opposing party. It's worth noting that the Sugandhi case was a regular civil suit, not a commercial one, and the relevant CPC provision differs from Order XI Rule 1(5).

Additionally, the Plaintiff’s Counsel referred to Vijay Kumar Varshney v. Longlast Power Products Ltd. & Anr. (2023)[2], where a Single Judge allowed the Plaintiff’s application under Order XI Rules 1(4) and 1(5) of CPC for producing additional documents to counter the Defendant's written statement. However, the Defendants' Counsel highlighted that, in this case, the application was promptly filed in January 2022, right after the Plaintiff’s replication in November 2021. The Plaintiff in Vijay Kumar Varshney introduced documents to establish prior use, addressing a specific claim made by the Defendant.

By Defendant’s Counsel

The Counsel representing the Defendants opposed the Plaintiff’s arguments, placing significant emphasis on the sequence of events to assert that the Plaintiff’s application was not only belated but also carried malicious intent. In aligning with the stringent timelines set by the Commercial Courts Act and outlined in Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, the Defendants' Counsel argued against granting permission for introducing documents, insisting it cannot be granted casually. The crux of the contention rested on the Plaintiff’s failure to disclose these documents with the initial suit or even during the replication in September 2021. Moving the application almost two years later, in July 2023, raised suspicions, especially since the documents were allegedly within the Plaintiff’s knowledge. The Defendants' Counsel stressed that the Plaintiff’s duty was to submit all relevant documents promptly to substantiate their claim. Importantly, the Defendants' Counsel pointed out that the stamp on these documents was dated February 22, 2023, predating the hearing on February 27, 2023, regarding the Defendants' application for additional documents. The absence of any indication from the Plaintiff’s Counsel on that day regarding their intention to file additional documents and the delay in moving the application for another five months were highlighted as crucial factors. Consequently, the Defendants' Counsel contended that the Plaintiff’s negligence in submitting supporting documents failed to meet the "reasonable cause" criterion under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC.

Further, the Defendants’ Counsel relied upon CEC-CICI JV & Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2020[3], a Single Judge extensively discussed and applied Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC. The judge rejected the application, making a distinction from the Sugandhi case. The judge emphasized, in paragraph 71, that the Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to gather the necessary documents before initiating the lawsuit. The argument presented by the Plaintiffs, claiming that the documents were scattered across different offices and therefore couldn't be compiled earlier, was dismissed as an afterthought. The court found that the Plaintiffs failed to provide a valid justification for the delayed submission of additional documents.

The Timely Analysis of Documents and Diligence

In examining the cases referred to by the respective Counsels, it's evident that the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi do not favor the Plaintiff. The court underscores the significance of the Commercial Courts Act, emphasizing strict deadlines and the necessity for expeditious resolution in high-value commercial disputes. Order XI Rule 1(1) of CPC grants the Plaintiff the initial opportunity to submit documents, followed by Rule 1(5) that mandates the court's leave for relying on undisclosed documents, contingent on reasonable cause.

The Plaintiff, claiming trademark use since 1955, missed the chance to substantiate this by not presenting relevant documents with the initial suit. Despite the Defendant's statement asserting use since 2005, the Plaintiff failed to capitalize on opportunities, including the replication stage, to fortify their case with supporting evidence. The lack of diligence is glaring, especially as certified copies of documents from a previous suit were received in February 2023, with no timely effort from the Plaintiff to present them.

The court notes the Plaintiff's lackadaisical approach, highlighting their longstanding presence in business and the expectation of diligence in protecting trademarks. The claim that the current application was a response to the Defendants' documents is dismissed, emphasizing the stringent deadlines imposed by the Commercial Courts Act. The court asserts that no prejudice exists for the Plaintiff, given the extensive documentation already submitted in support of their case.

Court’s Judgment

The court, in its judgment, examined that the Plaintiff's counsel strongly emphasized the court's previous permission for the Defendants to introduce documents, urging a similar opportunity for the Plaintiff. However, the court, despite recognizing the circumstances behind allowing the defendants' documents, asserted that it cannot grant unrestricted leeway for the Plaintiff to introduce documents at a later stage. The court highlighted the ample opportunities the Plaintiff had, in accordance with Order XI Rule 1 of the CPC, to submit relevant documents throughout various stages of the legal proceedings. It concluded that the Plaintiff's claim for equity cannot override statutory provisions. Consequently, the court deemed the Plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC for adding additional documents to be unmerited and dismissed it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the recent Delhi High Court judgment in the TTK Prestige trademark infringement case against Baghla Sanitaryware underscores the strict adherence to timelines mandated by the Commercial Courts Act. Emphasizing the Act's goal of swift resolution in high-value commercial disputes, the court rejected TTK Prestige's bid to introduce extra documents. The decision hinged on the court's interpretation of Order XI Rule 1(1) of the CPC, underscoring the imperative for plaintiffs to promptly present their case. This verdict serves as a cautionary reminder for businesses, particularly in intellectual property disputes, to vigilantly protect their trademarks within the prescribed legal parameters. The analysis of Order XI Rule 1(5) within the context of Commercial suits remains notably stringent, especially amid the challenges posed by COVID-19 restrictions. Despite potential reservations about allowing additional documents from the defendants, the court's denial of the plaintiff's request aligns appropriately with the stringent provisions of the Commercial Courts Act 2015.

[1] (2020) 10 SCC 706.

[2] 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3775.

[3] CS (COMM) 7/2020.