2015 (12) TMI 1860 - HC - Indian Laws

Appointment of Local Commissioners - It is argued that the defendants are manufacturing counterfeit products by blatantly using the trademark and the logo of the plaintiffs - Rule 9 CPC - HELD THAT - The books of account to be signed by the Local Commissioners will pertain to the stock of goods with the defendants bearing the trademark PUMA and the Form Strip Logo of the plaintiffs and also with respect to any other infringing materials with the defendants. The books of account would be those as pertain to the financial figures with respect to production and sales of the defendants. Each of the Local Commissioners will be paid fees of 75, 000/- plus out of pocket expenses - the concerned SHO/Head of the police station of the local areas where the two premises which have to be inspected by the Local Commissioners are situated will give necessary police assistance to the Local Commissioners and it will be the personal responsibility of the concerned SHO/Head of the police station to maintain complete confidentiality of the present order till the commissions are executed by the Local Commissioners and failing which the SHO/Head of the police station will be personally answerable to this Court. Counsel for the plaintiffs states that he will comply with necessary provisions of the Commercial Courts Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Ordinance 2015 with respect to filing of documents as provided in the amended procedure of Order 11 CPC as applicable to commercial suits within a period of two weeks from today. The needful be done within a period of two weeks - Summons in the suit and notices in the I.A be issued to the defendants on filing of process fee both in the ordinary method as well as by registered AD post returnable before the Joint Registrar on 22nd February 2016.

Summary

Issues: Trademark infringement, appointment of Local Commissioners, police assistance, compliance with court procedures.

Trademark Infringement:
The plaintiffs, a company using the trademark PUMA for about 65 years, argued that the defendants were manufacturing counterfeit products by blatantly using their trademark and logo. The plaintiffs highlighted their worldwide recognition, with sales figures in millions of dollars and endorsements from sports personalities. The court, considering the arguments and documents presented, restrained the defendants from using the trademark PUMA or any deceptively similar trademark, along with the Form Strip Logo of the plaintiffs, on their products.

Appointment of Local Commissioners:
The court appointed two Local Commissioners to visit the premises of the defendants and prepare an inventory of infringing products bearing the plaintiffs' trademark and logo. The Commissioners were also tasked with documenting any other infringing items, signing the defendants' books of account, and ensuring access to financial records related to the production and sales of the defendants. Each Commissioner was to be paid fees along with out-of-pocket expenses.

Police Assistance:
The court directed the SHO/Head of the police station in the local areas where the premises were located to provide necessary police assistance to the Local Commissioners. The SHO/Head of the police station was personally responsible for maintaining complete confidentiality of the court order until the Commissioners executed their tasks, with personal accountability in case of any breach.

Compliance with Court Procedures:
The plaintiffs were instructed to comply with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC within 10 days. Additionally, the counsel for the plaintiffs committed to adhering to the necessary procedures of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division, and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Ordinance, 2015, regarding filing of documents within two weeks. Summons in the suit and notices in the I.A were to be issued to the defendants, returnable before the Joint Registrar on a specified date.