Taking the dig at a plaintiff seeking to restrain the violation of his trade mark, THE DARZI, the Delhi High Court has recently remarked,.“..the plaintiffs, in the business of tailoring if unable to stitch their own ‘suit’ with precision, cannot be expected to properly stitch ‘suits’ of others.”.The remark was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw..The plaintiff had moved the Court seeking a permanent injunction to restrain certain parties (defendants) from infringing his trademark, THE DARZI and from passing off their tailoring services and goods by using the word DA’ DARZEE..As per the plaintiff’s case, the defendants’ mark was DZINES AUF’ DARZEE (DA’DARZEE) and the registration of the same was pending..However, no injunction was sought by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants as far as DZINES AUF’ DARZEE (DA’DARZEE) was concerned..The Court thus recorded that the plaintiff had no objection to the defendants’ use of the mark DZINES AUF’ DARZEE (DA’DARZEE)..However, the plaintiff informed the Court that on second thought, he did have objections to the use of the mark DZINES AUF’ DARZEE (DA’DARZEE)..Since no relief to that effect has been claimed, the counsel for the plaintiffs stated that the plaint would be amended..In view of the change of plaintiff’s stance, the Court remarked,.“I have observed in an order in an earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs, in the business of tailoring if unable to stitch their own ‘suit’ with precision, cannot be expected to properly stitch ‘suits’ of others.”. The said position is found to continue, the Court added..In view of the plaintiff’s statement that the plaint would be amended to raise objections against the use of the mark DZINES AUF’ DARZEE (DA’DARZEE) by the defendants, the matter was adjourned till December 18..The plaintiff was represented by Advocates Amit Tomar, Chirag Rathor, Sudhir Balyan..Read the Order:
Taking the dig at a plaintiff seeking to restrain the violation of his trade mark, THE DARZI, the Delhi High Court has recently remarked,.“..the plaintiffs, in the business of tailoring if unable to stitch their own ‘suit’ with precision, cannot be expected to properly stitch ‘suits’ of others.”.The remark was passed by a Single Judge Bench of Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw..The plaintiff had moved the Court seeking a permanent injunction to restrain certain parties (defendants) from infringing his trademark, THE DARZI and from passing off their tailoring services and goods by using the word DA’ DARZEE..As per the plaintiff’s case, the defendants’ mark was DZINES AUF’ DARZEE (DA’DARZEE) and the registration of the same was pending..However, no injunction was sought by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants as far as DZINES AUF’ DARZEE (DA’DARZEE) was concerned..The Court thus recorded that the plaintiff had no objection to the defendants’ use of the mark DZINES AUF’ DARZEE (DA’DARZEE)..However, the plaintiff informed the Court that on second thought, he did have objections to the use of the mark DZINES AUF’ DARZEE (DA’DARZEE)..Since no relief to that effect has been claimed, the counsel for the plaintiffs stated that the plaint would be amended..In view of the change of plaintiff’s stance, the Court remarked,.“I have observed in an order in an earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs, in the business of tailoring if unable to stitch their own ‘suit’ with precision, cannot be expected to properly stitch ‘suits’ of others.”. The said position is found to continue, the Court added..In view of the plaintiff’s statement that the plaint would be amended to raise objections against the use of the mark DZINES AUF’ DARZEE (DA’DARZEE) by the defendants, the matter was adjourned till December 18..The plaintiff was represented by Advocates Amit Tomar, Chirag Rathor, Sudhir Balyan..Read the Order:
