JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction, passing off, infringement and rendition of accounts in respect of the unauthorized and illegal use of the plaintiffs’ name, trademark HEADSTRONG/JAMES MARTIN and copyrights, both original artistic and literary, by the defendants.
2. Plaintiff No. 1 is a company incorporated and registered under the laws of Delaware, USA while plaintiff No. 2 is a subsidiary of plaintiff No. 1. Defendant No. 1 is a company incorporated in July, 2001 and engaged in the same business as the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim to be worldwide leaders in their market with innovations such as the development of gantthead, the world’s largest dedicated online community and resource for information technology project managers. Such service is stated to be provided worldwide in the field of digital business by managing the area of business and technology integration so as to enable their customers to realise the economic benefits of integrating business with customers, suppliers and partners. It is not necessary to go into greater details of the averments made in the plaint.
3. Plaintiff No. 2 entered into a joint venture with defendant No. 2 and one Mr. Anil Nagar to form a Joint Venture company. Subsequently, Mr. Nagar’s interest in the Joint Venture was transferred to Defendant No. 2. The Joint Venture was established for providing software development and integration strategies and systems in the Indian market, including the provision of consultancy, education and knowledge based products, system development, system solutions and strategic planning in the use of information technology. The Joint Venture company was incorporated under the name of James Martin and Co. Pvt. Ltd. in which plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 2 held fifty per cent equity each. Defendant No. 2 was to be responsible for the management and marketing of the Joint Venture Company in India and it is stated that from the time of its incorporation in the year 1992, the Joint Venture became a name to be reckoned in the field of its expertise.
4. In March, 2000, plaintiff No. 1 changed its name from M/s James Martin and Co. Worldwide to M/s Headstrong Corporation and since then all of its business is being conducted under the tradename/trademark/design/logo ‘HEADSTRONG’. Similarly the name of plaintiff No. 2 was changed from M/s James Martin Holdings Ltd. to M/s Headstrong Consulting Worldwide Ltd. In view of the change of name, worldwide publicity campaign was undertaken by the plaintiffs.
5. On 30.04.2001, defendant No. 2 vide a Share Purchase Agreement of the said date transferred his entire share holding in the Indian Joint Venture Company to M/s Bilt Investments Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 55,00,000/- duly received by defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 resigned from the Board of Directors of the Joint Venture and ceased to have any relationship. Form No. 32 was filed with the Registrar of Companies and the changes were confirmed as per the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Joint Venture held on 01.05.2001.
6. Plaintiffs claims that by the end of October,2001 they came to know that defendant No. 2 had formed an Indian Company under the name and style M/s Headstrong India Pvt. Ltd. Defendant No. 2 claimed to be the CEO of defendant No. 1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants also misappropriated the contents of the plaintiffs’ website and continued to do so despite the request of the plaintiffs to defendant No. 2 to cease and desist from doing so. Plaintiffs claim that the defendant No. 2 wrongly started alleging that it had incorporated defendant No. 1 in terms of the Joint Venture agreement and that the formation of M/s Headstrong India Pvt. Ltd. was in keeping with the spirit of the Joint Venture.
7. Plaintiff No. 1 claims violation of the trademark of the plaintiffs including in the website www.headstrong.com. The defendants are stated to be illegally hosting a similar website.
8. At the stage when the suit was filed, the plaintiffs also prayed for interim relief which was granted on 17.01.2002. The said interim orders are continuing. The suit was contested by the defendants. On the last couple of dates of hearing, it was put to the leraned Counsel for the parties that in view of there being multifarious dispute pending between the parties, what was the lis surviving in the present suit. Leraned Counsel for the plaintiffs fairly stated that so long as the defendants do not use the words James Martin/Headstrong in the trademark/tradename including the website, nothing more is required to be considered in the present suit. Leraned Counsel for the defendants had expressed an apprehension that in view of the other disputes pending, this may cause prejudice to the defendants. It was thus also put to the defendants that such an order/decree would be without prejudice to the other disputes.
9. Leraned Counsel for the defendants had also expressed an apprehension that their claim of certain rights flowing from the Joint Venture is still to be adjudicated upon and if they succeed in those claims made in different legal proceedings, rights would arise in their favor. This could also be taken care of by a direction, according to leraned Counsel for the plaintiffs, that if the defendants at all succeed in such a claim, the present order would not prejudice such rights of the defendants even though according to the plaintiffs no such rights flow to the defendants.
10. It is not in dispute that unless the defendants establish in the legal proceedings initiated by them any such rights flowing from a Joint Venture, they would not be entitled to use the trademark/tradename James Martin/Headstrong. Despite a number of opportunities, leraned Counsel for the defendants has been unable to obtain appropriate instructions.
11. In my considered view, the suit cannot be permitted to be continued just for the sake of it because some parties are not willing to come forth before the Court and give appropriate instructions. The parties cannot decide to abstain themselves from giving appropriate instructions or from making necessary submissions and expect the Court to continue litigation in the normal course. Time has come when fruitless litigation must be put to an end.
12. In view of the aforesaid, I deem it appropriate to decree the suit in the following terms:
(1) The defendants will not use the trademark/tradename James Martin/Headstrong;
(2) The aforesaid is without prejudice to the rights and claims of the parties in other disputes.
(3) If the defendants succeed in establishing their rights in the Joint Venture in the legal proceedings filed by them, it would result in flow of the right to the defendants to use tradenames James Martin/Headstrong to the defendants.
13. The suit is decreed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
IA No. 469/2002 (Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 CPC)
IA No. 1866/2002 (Under Sections 8 and 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 20 and Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC)
IA No. 1693/2002 (Under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC)
IA No. 1520/2002 (Under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC)
IA No. 6509/2003 (Under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC)
IA No. 11635/2003 (Under Order 3 Rule 2 of CPC)
IA No. 306/2004 (Under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC)
IA No. 2815/2004 (Under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC)
IA No. 441/2007 (Under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC)
The applications do not survive for consideration in view of the suit being decreed and are accordingly disposed of.