WWW.LIVELAW.IN

$~15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 56/2017 BATA INDIA LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Neeraj Grover, Ms. Mehak Nakra & Mr. Aditya Singh, Advs. Versus SUBHASH KAPOOR & ORS ..... Defendants Through: Mr. Saikrishna Rajagopal, Mr. Siddharth Chopra, Mr. Munish Mehra, Ms. S. Mandal, & Mr. S. Narang, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW ORDER % 24.01.2017 IA No.1013/2017 (for exemption) 1.

Allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2.

The application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 56/2017 & IA No.1012/2017 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC) 3.

The plaintiff has instituted this suit averring infringement of its

trademark “BATA” and disparagement from use thereof in the trailer of the film “Jolly LL.B.-2” produced by defendant no.3 Fox Star Studios India Pvt. Ltd. The others involved in the making of the film viz. Sh. Subhash Kapoor, Sh. Naren Kumar, Sh. Annu Kapoor and Sh. Akshay Kumar are impleaded as defendants no.1,2,4 and 5. 4.

The plaintiff, besides claiming the relief of permanent injunction, has

also claimed the relief of damages. CS(COMM) 56/2017

Page 1 of 3

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

5.

The senior counsel for the plaintiff, besides contending on merits, has

handed over in the Court a copy of the communication dated 20th January, 2017 received from the advocate for the defendants no.2&3, wherein the defendants no.2&3, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the defendants no.2&3, have agreed not to use the word „BATA‟ in the film. 6.

The counsel for the defendants no.2&3 also appears though not on

caveat and states that a decision has been taken to, with effect from 23rd January, 2017 change the trailer of the film from that being screened in the cinema halls earlier to a new one without use of the word “BATA”. It is however stated that effecting the change in far flung areas may take two or three days time. With respect to the trailer on the social media, it is stated that the instructions therefor shall be issued today itself to the defendant no.8 Novi Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. owning Hotstar and defendant no.9 “YouTube LLC”. 7.

The defendants no.2&3 are bound by the aforesaid statement.

8.

Though it has been suggested that the suit be disposed of on above

terms but the senior counsel for the plaintiff on instructions states that the plaintiff will press for the relief claimed of damages as the trailer on the social media had more than 18 million views, unless the defendants publishes a public apology. The latter offer is made, again without prejudice to rights and contentions. 9.

Needless to state the counsel for the defendants no.2&3 is not agreeable thereto.

10.

Binding the defendants no.2&3 to the statement made today, the suit,

without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties, insofar as for the relief of permanent injunction in paras 37(a) to (c) of the plaint, is disposed of. CS(COMM) 56/2017

Page 2 of 3

WWW.LIVELAW.IN

11.

Decree sheet be drawn up.

12.

Resultantly IA No.1012/2017 under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 of the

CPC also stands disposed of. 13.

Issue summons of the suit insofar as for the relief of damages.

14.

Summons are accepted on behalf of the defendants no.2,3&8.

14.

The plaintiff to take steps for service of the remaining defendants by

all modes including dasti, returnable before the Joint Registrar on 8th March, 2017. Dasti under signature of Court Master.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J JANUARY 24, 2017 „gsr‟.. CS(COMM) 56/2017

Page 3 of 3