LatestLaws.

com

$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 380/2019
TITAN COMPANY LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Pravin Anand with Mr. A.
Sreekumar & Mr. Akshay Agarwal,
Advs.
Versus
ROHIT KUMAR JAIN AND ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
ORDER
% 29.07.2019

IA No.10091/2019 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
2. The application is disposed of.
IA No.10090/2019 (under Order XI Rule 1(4) for filing additional
documents).
3. The application is disposed of by permitting the plaintiff to file
additional documents latest along with the replication if any filed to the
written statement of the defendants.
4. The application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) No.380/2019 & IA No.10089/2019 (under order XXXIX
Rules 1&2 CPC)
5. The plaintiff has sued Rohit Kumar Jain (at Delhi), Dharam Pal (at
Haryana) and Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd., for permanent injunction restraining
counterfeiting of the products of the plaintiff under the marks “TITAN” and
“FASTTRACK”.
6. Issue summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim
CS(COMM) 380/2019 Page 1 of 2
 LatestLaws.com

relief to the defendants by all modes including dasti and electronic,

returnable on 23rd August, 2019.
7. The plaintiff, on the basis of averments made in the plaint and
documents filed has made out a case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction.
8. From a perusal of the portal of the defendant no.3 Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd.,
it is not very clear as to where the Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of a
particular marketeer / manufacturer whose goods are being offered for sale
and particulars whereof were sought by the defendant no.3 on the complaint
made by plaintiff, are shown. The said portal is also found to contain a
column requiring particulars of the marketeer / manufacturer of the goods to
be disclosed but no particulars are found to be given therein also.
9. The counsel for the plaintiff, on enquiry states that inspite of complaint
and furnishing of URLs, the same have not been removed till date.
10. The defendants no.1 and 2, till further orders, are restrained from
selling, marketing or otherwise dealing in the goods bearing the marks
“TITAN” and “FASTTRACK” of the plaintiff and the defendant no.3, till
further order, is directed to forthwith, within 24 hours of service of this
order, remove the URLs of which complaint has been lodged by the plaintiff
with the defendant no.3 and of which particulars are given in the plaint also
and to thereafter also, immediately on receipt of complaint from the plaintiff
of other / further URLs selling counterfeit goods of the plaintiff, remove the
same. The defendant no.3 is also directed to answer the aforesaid queries.
10. The provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC, 1908 be complied forthwith.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

JULY 29, 2019/„gsr‟
CS(COMM) 380/2019 Page 2 of 2