Manish Kumar Jain And Another v. Tushar Saraf And Others

IA No: GA-Com 1 of 2024 APOT No. 316 of 2024 with IP-Com No. 21 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

In appeal from its ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (Commercial Division) Manish Kumar Jain & Another

Versus

Tushar Saraf & Ors.

Before:

The Hon'ble Justice I. P. MUKERJI And The Hon'ble Justice BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY Date: 11th September 2024 Appearance:

Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sayantan Basu, Advocate Mr. Tanmoy Ray, Advocate for the appellants Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Sr. Advocate Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Advocate Mr. Shaunak Mitra, Advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Pandey, Advocate Mr. Biswaroop Mukherjee, Advocate for respondent no.1 Mr. Sayan Roy Chowdhury, Advocate Mr. Soumya Sen, Advocate Mr. Paritosh Sinha, Advocate Mr. K. K. Pandey, Advocate Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate for respondent no.3 The Court: Order in terms of prayer (a) of the stay petition. We are in a position to dispose of this appeal today itself, dispensing with all formally.

This appeal is against an interim order dated 8th August 2024 made by a learned single judge in an interim application in a trademark suit restraining the appellants from using the trademark "JJ DELUX" and "various other "JJ" formative marks" till 13th September 2024. We find that at the motion stage the matter was argued extensively by learned counsel for both the parties. However, the

penultimate paragraph of the interim order directed the respondents/plaintiffs to serve "the copy of the application, documents and plaint" on the appellants/defendants. The application was made returnable on 13th September 2024.

It is plain from perusal of this order that this interim order had been passed on the prima facie case that could be made out by the respondents/plaintiffs at the motion stage on the available evidence. Although the appellants/defendants had been heard, there was scope of further exposition of the prima facie case, balance of convenience and so on, on the returnable date.

In that view of the matter, it would be in the fitness of things if the interim application was heard out by the learned trial judge de novo, considering all the materials now available before his lordship to consider whether to extend or modify or reverse or vary the impugned interim order.

All points are kept open before the court.

The impugned interim order dated 8th August 2024 is extended till 20th September 2024.

The appeal (APOT 316 of 2024) and the connected stay application (IA No: GA-com 1 of 2024) are disposed of. As affidavits were not invited, the allegations contained in the stay application are deemed to have been not admitted. (I. P. MUKERJI, J.) (BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.) R. Bose