- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- C. Hari Shankar
- Outcome
- Allowed
Headnote
Appeal allowed and a plaint restored that had been rejected under Order VII Rule 11(a) as disclosing a purely illusory cause of action. The Division Bench held that the plaint contained specific averments of continuous and exclusive use of the mark in India, a licence agreement, substantial sales and goodwill, and the defendant's adoption of deceptively similar packaging, all of which must be presumed true at that stage and together disclose a cause of action. Whether the plaintiff ultimately succeeds is extraneous to the inquiry. The allegation that the plaintiff had suppressed two agreements failed because they formed no part of the plaint and their effect was a triable issue, a suppressed fact being material only if its disclosure would alter the decision.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.