THE TREND IN DELHI HIGH COURT DOES NOT CATCH ON IN BENGALURU CITY CIVIL COURT

INTERESTING TAKE BY THE BENGALURU DISTRICT COURT WHILE PASSING ORDERS SEEKING DISPENSATION OF EX-PARTE EVIDENCE IN TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT SUIT

The Delhi High Court in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors vs Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd. 2013 SCC OnLine Del 508 opined that “I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination­in chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination­in­chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. I have therefore heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on merits qua the relief of injunction”.Subsequently, in various cases of Trademark infringement claim the court has allowed for dispensation of ex parte evidence.

However, the Bengaluru City Civil court in O. S No. 911/2019  has taken a different step forward basing its order on sound foundation of judicial precedents. Counsel Akshatha M Patel and Co- Counsel Mythili Girish while representing Krishna Grand on behalf of Holla Associates an iconic restaurant in Bengaluru , filed a application seeking dispensation of ex parte evidence relying upon the above mentioned citations. However, while rejecting the application the court has It’s own path. It has observed the following along with the merits of the case.

Whether the plaintiff is the owner of registered trademark and whether there is any infringement or passing off of the trademark has to be proved by duly adducing evidence as per the law and mere filing of the plaint and production of document without admitting the same into evidence does not ipsofacto dispense with the evidence of plaintiff and entitle him for the judgment”

It is heartening to see the courts individually assessing the cases before proceeding with application of judicial precedents  laid out by other courts of law.