The Delhi High Court recently rejected TTK Prestige's plea to place additional documents on record to prove its Trademark Infringement suit filed against Prestige by Baghla Sanitaryware.
Bench comprising Anish Dayal observed that, "With the advent of the Commercial Courts Act, the deadlines and indeed the elasticity of such deadlines has become strict and sacrosanct. This was the whole object of the Commercial Courts Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act itself highlights the necessity for speedy disposal of high value commercial disputes and early resolution. It was for this reason that provisions of CPC were amended as per Section 16 of the Commercial Courts Act and a detailed timeline was provided for filing of pleadings and documents."
The Court explained that Order XI Rule 1(1) of CPC, as applicable to commercial suits, gave the first opportunity to a plaintiff to file documents on which they chose to rely upon at the time of filing of the suit.
The Court said that such filing was done along with a declaration that all documents in the power, possession, control or custody of the plaintiff, pertaining to facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated, have been disclosed and copies have been annexed with the plaint.
The Court noted that, "Defendant’s written statement claimed that they were using the word mark ‘PRESTIGE’ since 2005. In support of the same, they filed documents, inter alia, sale invoices, screen-shots from various e-commerce platforms and communications exchanged between defendants and the customers. Having had the benefit of the written statement and documents filed, it was natural for the plaintiff to establish their case by establishing prior use before 2005 at the very outset."
The Court said that the plaintiff being a company of repute, having been in business for decades, should have been diligent about protecting their trademarks.
The Court rejected the plea preferred by Prestige.