{"id":231464,"date":"2010-03-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-30T09:17:26","modified_gmt":"2018-11-30T03:47:26","slug":"ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. vs M\/S. H.E. Industries & Ors. on 25 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. vs M\/S. H.E. Industries & Ors. on 25 March, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Manmohan Singh<\/div>\n
*             HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI\n\n+           IA No. 5352\/2008 in CS (OS) No. 816\/2008\n\n       M\/s. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd.            ......Plaintiff\n                     Through: Ms. Pratibha M. Singh with\n                                Mr. Deepak Gogia, Advs.\n\n                                 Versus\n\n       M\/s. H.E. Industries & Ors.                  ......Defendants\n                      Through: Mr. S.K. Bansal, Adv.\n\nJudgment decided on : March 25, 2010\n\nCoram:\n\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may\n   be allowed to see the judgment?                     No\n\n2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                  Yes\n\n3. Whether the judgment should be reported\n   in the Digest?                                      Yes\n\nMANMOHAN SINGH, J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.          The plaintiff filed IA No. 5352\/2008 under Order XXXIX<\/p>\n
Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (\u201eCPC\u201f for brevity)<\/p>\n
for an interim injunction restraining the defendants, their family<\/p>\n
members, promoters, officers, agents etc. from using the word\/ name\/<\/p>\n
mark “JOHNSON” in relation to electric water heaters (including instant<\/p>\n
geysers) in any manner as such use would result in infringement of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff\u201fs registered trademark and passing off of the defendants\u201f goods<\/p>\n
as those of the plaintiff\u201fs.\n<\/p>\n
2.          The brief facts of the case are that the mark “JOHNSON”<\/p>\n
was registered on 14.09.1960 vide registration no. 197998-B in class 11<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                           Page 1 of 25<\/span>
\n in the name of the predecessors in interest i.e. M\/s. Jain Industries of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff with regard to hot plates, toasters and water boilers.<\/p>\n
3.         The predecessors in interest M\/s. Jain Industries was a<\/p>\n
partnership firm which was dissolved on 01.04.1967 and on the same<\/p>\n
date a new partnership was constituted which continued business under<\/p>\n
the mark “JOHNSON”.\n<\/p>\n
4.         A Trust Deed dated 26.06.1979 brought into existence a<\/p>\n
Trust by the name of Jain Youngsters Trust (\u201eJY Trust\u201f for brevity) who<\/p>\n
took over the business of M\/s. Jain Industries by way of an assignment<\/p>\n
deed dated 22.12.1979.\n<\/p>\n
5.         Thereafter the mark “JOHNSON” which was by that time<\/p>\n
registered in Classes 9, 11 and 21 vide registration nos. 197997-B,<\/p>\n
197998-B and 195359 respectively and three pending applications being<\/p>\n
319954, 319955 and 319953 for wider specification of goods in the<\/p>\n
afore-mentioned respective classes were also assigned to the JY Trust.<\/p>\n
6.         The understanding reached between the parties was that<\/p>\n
actual manufacturing and marketing of the “JOHNSON” products was<\/p>\n
to be done by M\/s. Jain Industries.\n<\/p>\n
7.         By letter dated 21.03.1979 the JY Trust informed the<\/p>\n
Trademark Registry that as and when the pending application no.<\/p>\n
319955 under class 11 was proceeded for registration, the same would<\/p>\n
be associated with the mark “JOHNSON” already registered in class 11<\/p>\n
vide registration no. 197998-B.\n<\/p>\n
8.         Another Trust was created by trust deed dated 08.06.1984 by<\/p>\n
the name of M\/s. C.L. Jain Trust (\u201eCL Trust\u201f for brevity) which was<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                               Page 2 of 25<\/span>
\n constituted of Sh. Chain Lal Jain, Smt. Laj Wanti Jain and Sh. Muni Lal<\/p>\n
Jain.\n<\/p>\n
9.          By way of an assignment deed dated 01.07.1984 the JY Trust<\/p>\n
assigned the mark “JOHNSON” to the CL Trust including the registered<\/p>\n
and pending trademarks. At this time, applications no. 398343 in class<\/p>\n
7, nos. 398341 and 390169 in class 9 and no. 398342 in class 11 were<\/p>\n
also pending in addition to the previously mentioned pending<\/p>\n
applications and all of these were assigned to the CL Trust.<\/p>\n
10.         By way of a further assignment, the CL Trust by assignment<\/p>\n
deed dated 05.10.1987 assigned the mark “JOHNSON” registered in<\/p>\n
three classes as well as all the pending registration applications to M\/s.<\/p>\n
Johnson Sales (India) which was a partnership firm consisting of Mr.<\/p>\n
Subhash Chand Jain S\/o Sh. Chain Lal Jain, Mrs. Gunmala Jain W\/o Mr.<\/p>\n
Muni Lal Jain and Mrs. Shashi Jain W\/o Sh. Vinod Kumar Jain.<\/p>\n
11.         The ownership of the trademark “JOHNSON” was once<\/p>\n
again shifted by agreement dated 02.04.1992 by way of which M\/s.<\/p>\n
Classic Equipment Pvt. Ltd. (promoted by the Jain family) took over<\/p>\n
M\/s. Johnson Sales (India) the partnership firm along with all its assets<\/p>\n
and liabilities and became the proprietor of the said trademark.<\/p>\n
12.         By assignment deed dated 09.03.1994, the trademark<\/p>\n
“JOHNSON” in relation to electric storage water heaters (excluding<\/p>\n
instant geysers) covered under No. 197998-B in class 11 was assigned<\/p>\n
to a partnership firm M\/s. Vidyut Udyog by M\/s. Classic Equipment<\/p>\n
Pvt. Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
13.         The assignment was accepted by the Trademark Registry<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                               Page 3 of 25<\/span>
\n vide order no. PR\/985 dated 20.01.1995 and the mark “JOHNSON”<\/p>\n
registered in class 11 was split in a way that in relation to the item<\/p>\n
electric   water   heaters   (excluding     instant   geysers),     the   mark<\/p>\n
“JOHNSON” became the proprietary concern of M\/s. Vidyut Udyog.<\/p>\n
14.         By agreement dated 02.04.1997 M\/s. Johnson Appliances (P)<\/p>\n
Ltd., the plaintiff herein, took over the business of M\/s. Vidyut Udyog<\/p>\n
along with all assets and liabilities and consequently, the said trademark<\/p>\n
with relation to electric water heaters (excluding instant geysers)<\/p>\n
became the property of the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
15.         The Trademark Registry issued a certificate on 26.09.1997<\/p>\n
recording the plaintiff as the proprietor of the trademark “JOHNSON” in<\/p>\n
relation to the electric water heaters (excluding instant geysers).<\/p>\n
16.         The said mark was renewed from time to time except on<\/p>\n
14.09.2002 after which a TM-13 for renewal was filed but disallowed as<\/p>\n
time barred.\n<\/p>\n
17.         An appeal was filed in the IPAB and the Registrar\u201fs order of<\/p>\n
refusal was set aside vide order dated 10.02.2005. An application for<\/p>\n
renewal is filed and is pending as per the case of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n
18.         The flow chart hereunder indicates as to how the said mark<\/p>\n
over the years has travelled from predecessors in interest of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
to the plaintiff company :\n<\/p>\n
                    M\/s. Jain Industries
\n                                                           22.12.1979
\n                    Jain Youngsters Trust
\n                                                           01.07.1984<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                                 Page 4 of 25<\/span>
\n                     C.L. Jain Trust
\n                                                         05.10.1987<\/p>\n
                    M\/s. Johnson Sales (India)
\n                                                         02.04.1992
\n                    M\/s. Classic Equipment Pvt. Ltd.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                                         09.03.1994<\/p>\n
                    M\/s. Vidyut Udyog
\n                                                         02.04.1997<\/p>\n
                    M\/s. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
19.        As per the plaintiff, it has been the sole and exclusive owner<\/p>\n
of the mark “JOHNSON” in relation to electric water geysers (except<\/p>\n
instant geysers) since 02.04.1997 and the plaintiff and its permitted user<\/p>\n
being Johnson Sales (India) have together been manufacturing\/ trading<\/p>\n
the said products under the name “JOHNSON” all over the country<\/p>\n
through their distributors\/ dealers.\n<\/p>\n
20.        It is averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has advertised<\/p>\n
the mark “JOHNSON” throughout the country and the said mark is now<\/p>\n
associated exclusively with the plaintiff. The sales figures of the<\/p>\n
plaintiff and its permitted user for the last six years are given in the<\/p>\n
plaint.\n<\/p>\n
21.        The plaintiff has alleged that the inter-se disputes between<\/p>\n
the four brothers of the Jain family (of which M\/s. Classic Equipment<\/p>\n
Pvt. Ltd. and defendant no. 4 were part) resulted in a Memorandum of<\/p>\n
Partition dated 12.03.1999 to which all the brothers were signatories.<\/p>\n
The assignment deed dated 01.04.1999 was a result of and in<\/p>\n
consonance with the Memorandum of Partition.\n<\/p>\n
22.        It is the plaintiff\u201fs submission that the said Memorandum and<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                             Page 5 of 25<\/span>
\n assignment deed had nothing to do with the mark “JOHNSON” in<\/p>\n
relation to electrical water geysers as the rights of M\/s. Classic<\/p>\n
Equipment Pvt. Ltd. in the same had ceased to exist vide its assignment<\/p>\n
deed dated 09.03.1994 with M\/s. Vidyut Udyog which was taken over<\/p>\n
by the plaintiff and as such, the said disputes etc. do not in any way<\/p>\n
relate to the subject matter of this suit.\n<\/p>\n
23.         The plaintiff has also submitted that there was a Registered<\/p>\n
User Agreement dated 23.04.1992 between M\/s. Classic Equipment Pvt.<\/p>\n
Ltd. and a M\/s. Blumac Electricals India (\u201eM\/s. Blumac\u201f for brevity) as<\/p>\n
per which the latter was allowed to use the name “JOHNSON” against<\/p>\n
payment of royalty and further get agency commission as distributors.<\/p>\n
24.         Even in the Memorandum of Partition (Clause 1.3 of<\/p>\n
addendum) it was mutually agreed that the assignment would not affect<\/p>\n
the registered user rights of M\/s. Blumac and that the same would not be<\/p>\n
pressed to pay royalty and with effect from 01.04.1998 M\/s. Blumac<\/p>\n
was mutually held to be not liable to pay any royalty and not entitled to<\/p>\n
any agency commission.\n<\/p>\n
25.         However, defendant no. 4 in contravention of the said<\/p>\n
Memorandum interfered with the registered user rights of M\/s. Blumac<\/p>\n
due to which M\/s. Classic Equipment Pvt. Ltd. revoked the assignment<\/p>\n
deed dated 01.04.1999 vis-\u00e0-vis defendant no. 4 vide its letter dated<\/p>\n
15.05.2000 to the Registrar of Trademarks.\n<\/p>\n
26.         The matter was decided and appealed repetitively and finally<\/p>\n
the said assignment deed was stayed by this Court vide order dated<\/p>\n
18.03.2008 in WP (c) No. 2157\/2008. Meanwhile, defendant no. 4<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                           Page 6 of 25<\/span>
\n violated the Memorandum of Partition by terminating the registered user<\/p>\n
agreement to which Classic Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. Blumac were<\/p>\n
party.\n<\/p>\n
27.        Thereafter defendant no. 4 instituted a suit for infringement,<\/p>\n
passing off etc. against M\/s. Blumac in this Court being CS (OS) No.<\/p>\n
166\/2004. No interim order as per the record has been made in favour of<\/p>\n
defendant no. 4 yet.\n<\/p>\n
28.        Another suit being CS (OS) No. 1399\/2006 was filed by M\/s.<\/p>\n
Blumac for declaration etc. The plaintiff has submitted that all this<\/p>\n
litigation has no bearing on the present case.\n<\/p>\n
29.        It is the plaintiff\u201fs averment that defendant nos. 1 and 2 are<\/p>\n
engaged in manufacturing electric water geysers (except instant geysers)<\/p>\n
under the mark “JOHNSON” and the same are being marketed by<\/p>\n
defendant nos. 3 and 4. Defendant no. 5 is a distributor of defendant no.<\/p>\n
3 and the latter claims to be a licensed user of the mark “JOHNSON” in<\/p>\n
relation to the above-mentioned products due to a license\/permitted user<\/p>\n
agreement dated 27.05.2006 executed in its favour by defendant no. 4.<\/p>\n
30.        As per the plaintiff, the assignment deed entered into<\/p>\n
between M\/s. Classic Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and defendant no. 4 does not<\/p>\n
relate to the mark “JOHNSON” with regard to the products in question<\/p>\n
which came into the share of the Plaintiff. The same has been stayed by<\/p>\n
this Court in order dated 18.03.2008 in WP (c) No. 2157\/2008.<\/p>\n
31.        In view of these averments, the plaintiff has contended that<\/p>\n
the defendants\u201f use of the mark “JOHNSON” for electric water geysers<\/p>\n
(except instant geysers) is illegal and unlawful and constitutes the acts<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                            Page 7 of 25<\/span>
\n of infringement and passing off as the defendants are attempting to ride<\/p>\n
on the goodwill and reputation created by the plaintiff in the country for<\/p>\n
its products.\n<\/p>\n
32.         The acts of the defendants are alleged to be causing grave<\/p>\n
and irreparable injury to the plaintiff and thus it is prayed that the<\/p>\n
interim injunction as sought be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
33.         The defendants have contended that the suit filed by the<\/p>\n
plaintiff is bad in law and ought to be dismissed. The submissions of the<\/p>\n
defendants can be enumerated as under :\n<\/p>\n
      I.        The plaintiff\u201fs entire case is built on a fraudulent and<\/p>\n
                doctored document i.e. the deed of assignment dated<\/p>\n
                09.03.1994 has been fabricated and manipulated in order to<\/p>\n
                portray certain things to this Court. A photocopy of the<\/p>\n
                actual document as it was originally has been filed by the<\/p>\n
                defendants and as per the defendants a comparison of the<\/p>\n
                deed filed by the plaintiff with this copy of the deed will<\/p>\n
                prove the alleged fabrication. Details of the differences are<\/p>\n
                given by the defendants on page 1 and 2 of the written<\/p>\n
                statement.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      II.       Without prejudice to the above-stated contention, Counsel<\/p>\n
                for the defendants has sought to highlight the difference in<\/p>\n
                the product which was assigned to M\/s. Vidyut Udyog by<\/p>\n
                the deed dated 09.03.1994 and the product in relation to<\/p>\n
                which the plaintiff is contending that the product is being<\/p>\n
                used by it. M\/s. Vidyut Udyog was assigned the mark<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                               Page 8 of 25<\/span>
\n              “JOHNSON” with respect to “electric storage type water<\/p>\n
             heaters (excluding the instant type geysers)” but the said<\/p>\n
             mark was obtained by the plaintiff as regards “electric<\/p>\n
             water heaters (excluding the instant type geysers)”. It is the<\/p>\n
             defendants\u201f submission that the difference in the two is that<\/p>\n
             the words “storage type” have been omitted in the second<\/p>\n
             type of products and without the said words, the plaintiff\u201fs<\/p>\n
             product is only what is known in the trade as \u201eimmersion<\/p>\n
             rods\u201f which are used to heat up water. Even otherwise if it<\/p>\n
             is believed that the two products are the same and are used<\/p>\n
             for storing hot water, the plaintiff\u201fs product is a \u201ehammam\u201f<\/p>\n
             or a \u201eboiling chamber\u201f which is a portable drum where<\/p>\n
             water is stored and then heated through an electric element.<\/p>\n
             This type of product is very different form the electric<\/p>\n
             geyser which is mounted on the wall. In fact, the plaintiff\u201fs<\/p>\n
             brochures and the defendant\u201fs predecessors has also been<\/p>\n
             filed showing the \u201ehammam\u201f product.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      III.   Defendant no. 4 acquired all proprietary rights in the mark<\/p>\n
             “JOHNSON” by way of the deed dated 01.04.1999 with<\/p>\n
             relation to all the goods specified therein and as regards<\/p>\n
             goods with wider specifications also. Further, defendant no.<\/p>\n
             4 acquired the said rights from M\/s. Classic Equipment Pvt.<\/p>\n
             Ltd. itself whereas the plaintiff has claimed to have<\/p>\n
             acquired its rights from M\/s. Vidyut Udyog which obtained<\/p>\n
             the rights from M\/s. Classic Equipment Pvt. Ltd.<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                             Page 9 of 25<\/span>
\n       IV.    The plaintiff has been aware of the defendants\u201f rights and<\/p>\n
             use of the mark “JOHNSON” from the year 1999 as the<\/p>\n
             parties are all closely related and are part of the same<\/p>\n
             family. The defendants have established formidable<\/p>\n
             goodwill and reputation and the plaintiff is trying to take<\/p>\n
             advantage of the same.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      V.     The plaintiff\u201fs alleged rights in the product derived from<\/p>\n
             registration no. 197998-B in Class 11 which was split with<\/p>\n
             regard to “water boilers” as the assignment dated<\/p>\n
             09.03.1994 was amended by a TM-16 application dated<\/p>\n
             18.01.1995 and “Electric water heaters” was changed to<\/p>\n
             “Electric water boilers”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
34.         The defendants have argued that balance of convenience<\/p>\n
does not lie with the plaintiff as the defendants cannot be restrained<\/p>\n
from exercising their rights.\n<\/p>\n
35.         According to the defendants, in case the plaintiff\u201fs claimed<\/p>\n
goods \u201eElectric Water Heaters\u201f are the same as \u201eElectric Storage Type<\/p>\n
Water Heaters\u201f, even then these products in the trade, market and<\/p>\n
consumer parlance and in local language are commonly referred to as<\/p>\n
“hammams” or “boiling chambers”. The product “hammam” is a<\/p>\n
different type of geyser which is mounted on the wall and is fixed and<\/p>\n
stationery thereon. The term \u201einstant type geyser\u201f refers to fixed or<\/p>\n
portable geysers which are not hammams. In the hammam, water is<\/p>\n
stored and heated, while in a geyser water flows in from one inlet then<\/p>\n
passes through an element and flows out from another. Therefore, the<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                         Page 10 of 25<\/span>
\n two set of products i.e. hammams and geysers are different as per the<\/p>\n
written statement.\n<\/p>\n
36.        It is contended that defendant No.4 acquired all proprietary<\/p>\n
rights in the trademark “JOHNSON” under the written Deed of<\/p>\n
Assignment dated 01.04.1999 executed in its favour by Classic<\/p>\n
Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Under the Deed of Assignment, Defendant no. 4<\/p>\n
was assigned the trademark “JOHNSON” registration Nos. 195359,<\/p>\n
197997B and 319955 as per the goods specified therein as well as the<\/p>\n
pending application bearing Nos.398341 in Class 9, 398342 in Class 11,<\/p>\n
398343 in Class 7, 319954 in Class 9 and 390169 in Class 9.<\/p>\n
37.        The application No.398342 in Class 11 being Electric<\/p>\n
Geysers for hot waters and heaters and parts and accessories besides a<\/p>\n
whole lot of other electrical items have been assigned to the Defendant<\/p>\n
no. 4 besides the trademark registrations for the goods mentioned.<\/p>\n
These assigned goods include water boilers.\n<\/p>\n
38.        The contention of the Defendant no. 4 is that since the date<\/p>\n
of assignment deed dated 01.04.1999, the Defendant has been using the<\/p>\n
trademark “JOHNSON” continuously and commercially in relation to<\/p>\n
the goods falling in Class 7, 9, 11 and 21 except in relation to<\/p>\n
hammams, within the knowledge of the Plaintiff and therefore, valuable<\/p>\n
rights in the said goods has been built up by the Defendant.<\/p>\n
39.        It is also alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff<\/p>\n
was fully aware about the said right of the defendant from the year 1999<\/p>\n
itself as well as of the pending litigation between the defendant and M\/s.<\/p>\n
Blumac wherein all these claims are claimed by the defendant pertaining<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                           Page 11 of 25<\/span>
\n to the goods in Class 11 also. The Plaintiff is therefore, guilty of<\/p>\n
concealing the said fact from this Court and has deliberately<\/p>\n
manipulated the cause of action to read as from the year 2006 although<\/p>\n
the defendant has been carrying on business since the year 1999.<\/p>\n
40.        The suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation and is not<\/p>\n
maintainable due to the plaintiff\u201fs acquiescence, delay and estoppel.<\/p>\n
41.        The defendants have also denied any infringement of the<\/p>\n
trademark and also of any passing off in view of the honest practices<\/p>\n
adopted and independent rights claimed by the Defendants in relation to<\/p>\n
the geysers. It is alleged by the defendants that there is no cause of<\/p>\n
action for the present suit and the plaint is liable to be dismissed as the<\/p>\n
plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the subject matter of the<\/p>\n
trademark and the goods involved in the present case.<\/p>\n
42.        I have heard learned counsel for the parties. After moving<\/p>\n
their respective submissions, both the parties have informed the Court<\/p>\n
that up till the date of deed of assignment dated 09.03.1994, there is no<\/p>\n
dispute or challenge to the earlier assignments executed between the<\/p>\n
parties dated 1.7.1984, 5.10.1987 as well as the incorporation of Trust<\/p>\n
by the parties.\n<\/p>\n
43.        In the written statement, there is a challenge made by the<\/p>\n
defendant No.4 pertaining to the deed of assignment dated 09.03.1994.<\/p>\n
As per the defence raised by the said defendant the said deed of<\/p>\n
assignment is a forged document and the plaintiff on the basis of the<\/p>\n
same has procured the split trademark registration and orders from the<\/p>\n
Trade Marks Registry.\n<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                            Page 12 of 25<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 44.        In reply to the first submission of the Defendant No.4 as<\/p>\n
referred above, Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, learned counsel for the plaintiff<\/p>\n
has also referred the Affidavit of Sh. Munni Lal Jain, one of the<\/p>\n
Directors of M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd dated 06.06.2008 wherein<\/p>\n
he has deposed that on the date of execution of the assignment deed<\/p>\n
dated 09.03.1994 another assignment deed was entered into between<\/p>\n
M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. Jain Associates. Both these<\/p>\n
assignment deeds mentioned were drafted and prepared by the same<\/p>\n
M\/s. Delhi Registration Service, Patent and Trademark Attorney<\/p>\n
representing both the parties at that point of time. The same trademark<\/p>\n
attorney also drafted and prepared the other assignment deed and<\/p>\n
documents referred in the pleading and particularly the deeds of<\/p>\n
assignment dated 01.07.1984, 05.10.1987, 09.03.1994 and 01.04.1999.<\/p>\n
After having received the original assignment deeds entered into<\/p>\n
between M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. Vidyut Udyog and<\/p>\n
M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. Jain Associates dated<\/p>\n
09.03.1994 from Delhi Registration Service along with copies thereof,<\/p>\n
the same were duly signed and witnessed. One such duly signed and<\/p>\n
witnessed copy of each assignment deed was retained by M\/s. Classic<\/p>\n
Equipments Pvt. Ltd. for official record and the original deeds were<\/p>\n
returned to Delhi Registration Service for taking the necessary action for<\/p>\n
the purpose of recording these assignments in the Trademark Office. In<\/p>\n
the Affidavit, it was also deposed that subsequently it was discovered<\/p>\n
that the name of the assignee on the last page of both the assignment<\/p>\n
deeds was typed as “For Jain Associates through its partner Shri Muni<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                           Page 13 of 25<\/span>
\n Lal Jain” whereas one of the assignment deeds in effect related to M\/s.<\/p>\n
Vidyut Udyog.       This error was duly communicated to trademark<\/p>\n
attorney Delhi Registration Service and necessary corrections were<\/p>\n
made in the copies of the said deeds retained by M\/s. Classic<\/p>\n
Equipments Pvt. Ltd. for official purpose.\n<\/p>\n
45.        It is also mentioned in the Affidavit that both the assignment<\/p>\n
deeds dated 09.03.1994 were duly submitted to the Trademark Registry<\/p>\n
by M\/s. Delhi Registration Service. Vide letter dated 24.01.1995 M\/s.<\/p>\n
Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. was informed by the trademark attorney<\/p>\n
that the said assignments were allowed by the Trademark Registry. The<\/p>\n
said letter\/order No. Pr\/985 dated 20.01.1995 is already placed on<\/p>\n
record by the plaintiff along with the Affidavit as Annexure B.<\/p>\n
46.        When the learned counsel for the defendants was confronted<\/p>\n
with these facts, Mr. S.K. Bansal fairly gave up the argument regarding<\/p>\n
the validity of the assignment deed dated 09.03.1994 entered into<\/p>\n
between M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. Vidyut Udyog and<\/p>\n
resisted from alleging thereon that the same was a forged document.<\/p>\n
Despite the oral statement given by the defendant\u201fs counsel, the said<\/p>\n
fact is being dealt with by this Court in order to avoid any objection\/<\/p>\n
confusion in the future litigation.\n<\/p>\n
47.        It is already admitted between the parties that the trademark<\/p>\n
No.197998B was initially registered for Hot Plates, Toasters and Water<\/p>\n
Boilers in Class 11 in the name of M\/s. Jain Industries. There is no<\/p>\n
dispute that M\/s. Jain Industries made another application bearing<\/p>\n
No.319955 in Class 11 for wider specification of goods covering items<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                          Page 14 of 25<\/span>
\n which are part and parcel of registered trademark No.197998B in<\/p>\n
addition to other goods. M\/s. Jain Industries admittedly informed the<\/p>\n
Trade Marks Registry that the said pending applications bearing<\/p>\n
No.319955 made by it, as and when get registered, would be associated<\/p>\n
with the mark “JOHNSON” already registered bearing No.197998B.<\/p>\n
48.        As already mentioned that on 09.03.1994, the said trademark<\/p>\n
in relation to electric storage type water heaters (excluding the instant<\/p>\n
type geysers) was assigned in favour of M\/s. Vidyut Udyog by M\/s.<\/p>\n
Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
49.        The Trademark Registry vide its order No.PR\/985 dated<\/p>\n
20.1.1995 split the mark as per the following details:<\/p>\n
MARK          REGN.       CLASS     GOODS                   PROPRIETOR\n              NO.\nJOHNSON       197998 B    11        Water Heaters           M\/s Vidyut\n                                    (electric) (excluding   Udyog\n                                    the instant geysers)\nJOHNSON       197998 B    11        Hot Plats (electric),   M\/s Classic\n              (Split)               toasters                Equipments\nJOHNSON       319955      11        Toasters (electric),    M\/s. Classic\n                                    Water Heaters           Equipments\n                                    (instant type\n                                    geysers), Baking\n                                    Ovens\nJOHNSON       319955      11        Hot Plates (electric)   M\/s. Jain\n              (Split)               (Coil Stoves),          Associates\n                                    Electric Cooking\n                                    Range\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
50.        It appears from the preceding paragraph wherein the<\/p>\n
description of goods is mentioned that both, the trademark registered<\/p>\n
under Applications No.197998B and 319955, covered the item \u201ewater<\/p>\n
boiler\u201f. It appears that when the abovementioned two trademarks were<\/p>\n
split by the Trademark Registry by virtue of assignment deed dated<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                             Page 15 of 25<\/span>
\n 09.03.1994, the item water boiler got bifurcated into “Water Heaters<\/p>\n
(electric) (excluding the instant type geysers) and “Water Heaters<\/p>\n
(instant type geysers)”. The description of goods mentioned as Water<\/p>\n
Heaters (electric) (excluding the instant type geysers) went to M\/s.<\/p>\n
Vidyut Udyog under the registered No.197998B (which was<\/p>\n
subsequently taken over by the Plaintiff) and the remaining description<\/p>\n
of goods\/item Water Heaters (instant type geysers) remained with<\/p>\n
Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. under registered No.319955.<\/p>\n
51.        In fact subsequent to the order No.PR-985 by the Registry,<\/p>\n
the requisite TM-24 and TM-36 applications pertaining to the<\/p>\n
assignment deed dated 09.03.1994 in favour of M\/s. Vidyut Udyog were<\/p>\n
filed by the same trademark attorney. The said order was reaffirmed by<\/p>\n
the Trademark Registry vide its order No.PR-25 dated 14.2.1997. There<\/p>\n
was a further split in the trademark No.319955 on the same very date i.e.<\/p>\n
09.03.1994 between Classic Equipment Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. Jain<\/p>\n
Associates pertaining to items Electrical Coil Stoves, Electric Hot Plates<\/p>\n
and Electric Cooking Ranges.\n<\/p>\n
52.        The case of the Defendant No.4 is that the expression<\/p>\n
\u201eElectric storage type water heaters (excluding instant type geysers)\u201f<\/p>\n
that has been used in the assignment deed dated 09.03.1994 entered into<\/p>\n
between M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. Vidyut Udyog is in<\/p>\n
fact a \u201eHammam\u201f which is different from the product \u201eElectric water<\/p>\n
heaters (excluding instant type geysers)\u201f in which the Plaintiff has no<\/p>\n
right as the Plaintiff who has acquired the right from M\/s. Vidyut Udyog<\/p>\n
is using the same as water heater in the market on commercial scale.<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                           Page 16 of 25<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 53.        The documents filed by the Plaintiff as well as the<\/p>\n
description of goods referred by the Defendant no. 4 in their respective<\/p>\n
catalogues and advertising material clearly shows that the two terms<\/p>\n
\u201eelectric storage type water heaters\u201f and \u201ewater heaters\u201f are one and the<\/p>\n
same thing. This is further fortified from the fact that the said item has<\/p>\n
been acquired by the Plaintiff by virtue of assignment deed dated<\/p>\n
09.03.1994 and the same is being used openly with the knowledge of the<\/p>\n
Defendant. However, no action was taken by the Defendant against the<\/p>\n
Plaintiff in case the said item was merely “Hammam” and not water<\/p>\n
heater.\n<\/p>\n
54.        I agree with the learned counsel for the Plaintiff that the<\/p>\n
Electric water heater\/geyser in the market is classified in two categories<\/p>\n
i.e. the instant type and the storage type. While the former is the one<\/p>\n
wherein water is not stored, in fact it gets heated instantly as and when it<\/p>\n
enters the heater\/geyser and passes through the heating element before it<\/p>\n
exists in the heater\/geyser, the latter gets stored and then gets heated.<\/p>\n
The expression \u201eexcluding instant type\u201f itself connotes that the said<\/p>\n
product is storage type.\n<\/p>\n
55.        This fact is also proved from the printout of the screen shot<\/p>\n
taken from the website of the Plaintiff which is available at Page114.<\/p>\n
The Plaintiff has also filed a printout of the website of the Defendant<\/p>\n
No.4 which indicates that the expressions “geyser” and “heater” are one<\/p>\n
and the same.\n<\/p>\n
56.        Even the Defendants are using the expressions “geyser” and<\/p>\n
“heater” interchangeably as appears from the various documents filed by<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                             Page 17 of 25<\/span>
\n the Defendant No.4. The same nomenclature is used by the Defendant<\/p>\n
in ISI specification i.e. IS 2082 as is apparent from the documents filed<\/p>\n
by the Defendant No.4 for the product in question is Stationary Storage<\/p>\n
Type Electric Water Heaters.\n<\/p>\n
57.        Therefore, the contentions of the Defendants have no force<\/p>\n
when it is mentioned that in the assignment deed dated 09.03.1994<\/p>\n
entered into between M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. Vidyut<\/p>\n
Udyog the term Electric Storage Type Water Heater is used as<\/p>\n
\u201eHammams\u201f and then is distinguished from the product Electric Water<\/p>\n
Heater.\n<\/p>\n
58.        From the documents filed by the parties, it is clear that there<\/p>\n
is no distinction between the two expressions namely \u201eElectric storage<\/p>\n
type water heaters (excluding instant type geysers)\u201f and \u201eElectric water<\/p>\n
heaters (excluding instant type geysers)\u201f as is also evident from the TM-<\/p>\n
16 application for amendment dated 18.01.1995 filed on behalf of M\/s.<\/p>\n
Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. by M\/s. Delhi Registration Service, Trade<\/p>\n
Marks Agent representing Defendant No.4 in the present case.              The<\/p>\n
operative portion of the prayer in the said application reads as under:<\/p>\n
             “to read the expression Electric storage type
\n             water heaters (excluding instant type geysers)
\n             that was used in the assignment deed dated
\n             09.03.1994 entered into between M\/s. Classic
\n             Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. Vidyut Udyog,
\n             be read as “Electric water heaters (excluding
\n             instant type geysers)”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
59.        As far as the items in question are concerned, the same had<\/p>\n
been assigned by M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. in favour of M\/s.<\/p>\n
Vidyut Udyog by virtue of assignment deed dated 9.3.1994. M\/s.<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                            Page 18 of 25<\/span>
\n Vidyut Udyog was taken over by the plaintiff company vide agreement<\/p>\n
dated 2.4.1997 along with all assets and liabilities.<\/p>\n
60.        As a matter of fact, pursuant to the assignment deed dated<\/p>\n
09.03.1994 M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. itself made the<\/p>\n
application to the Trademark Registry in the prescribed form TM-36<\/p>\n
dated 17.05.1995 through the same trademark attorney for striking off<\/p>\n
the goods i.e. Water Heaters (electric) (excluding the instant type<\/p>\n
geysers) from the category of goods under their registered trademark<\/p>\n
No.197998B in Class 11.\n<\/p>\n
61.        The inter se dispute, if any, between the assignor of the<\/p>\n
Plaintiff i.e. M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and Defendant No.4 or<\/p>\n
any other third party subsequent to the assignment deed dated<\/p>\n
09.03.1994 in relation to the goods in question has no concern with the<\/p>\n
present litigation. Admittedly, the necessary entries have been made by<\/p>\n
the Trade Mark Registry on the basis of the execution of the assignment<\/p>\n
deed between M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and M\/s. Vidyut<\/p>\n
Udyog. The term \u201ewater boiler\u201f is also deleted from the description of<\/p>\n
goods vide orders dated 20.01.1995 and 14.02.1997.<\/p>\n
62.         In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered<\/p>\n
view that any subsequent action by the assignor or third party in<\/p>\n
relation to the items contrary to the assignment dated 9 th March, 1994 in<\/p>\n
the registered trade mark or pending applications or any entries made<\/p>\n
thereon was uncalled for and contrary to the law and orders dated<\/p>\n
20.01.1995 and 14.02.1997 already passed.\n<\/p>\n
63.        The important aspect of the matter is that all the relevant<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                           Page 19 of 25<\/span>
\n parties who were involved in the various assignment deeds and<\/p>\n
agreements and filing the necessary application for making the<\/p>\n
amendment were represented by the same Trade Mark attorney.             It<\/p>\n
appears from the documents filed by the parties that the assignor M\/s.<\/p>\n
Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. after the assignment of items in favour of<\/p>\n
the plaintiff has made subsequent application in the Trademark Office<\/p>\n
claiming its rights for the same items owned by it and incorrectly got the<\/p>\n
order passed on 26.09.1997. It appears from the order\/letter dated<\/p>\n
26.09.1997 issued by the Trade Mark Office the item water boiler is still<\/p>\n
shown in the name of M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. under the<\/p>\n
trademark No.319955 in Class 11, despite earlier orders already passed<\/p>\n
by according the assignment dated 9.3.1994 in favour of the Plaintiff.<\/p>\n
Thus, order\/letter issued by the Trade Marks Registry vide order\/letter<\/p>\n
dated 26.9.1997 is contrary to the orders already passed.<\/p>\n
64.        The learned counsel for the Defendant No.4 Mr. Bansal has<\/p>\n
argued that in any case Defendant No.4 has acquired the right by virtue<\/p>\n
of the assignment deed dated 01.04.1999 between M\/s. Classic<\/p>\n
Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and Defendant No.4, another application No.<\/p>\n
398342 in Class 11 which was filed in respect of electric geyser. One<\/p>\n
cannot but come to the conclusion that once the right pertaining to the<\/p>\n
water heaters has already been assigned in favour of M\/s. Vidyut Udyog<\/p>\n
by virtue assignment deed dated 09.03.1994, the question of<\/p>\n
reassignment of the same goods under application No.398342 by the<\/p>\n
same company M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. in favour of<\/p>\n
Defendant No.4 does not arise unless mala fide intentions are there.<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                           Page 20 of 25<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 65.        Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the application<\/p>\n
No.398342 in Class 11 was already obtained by the Defendant, factum<\/p>\n
of which is mentioned in suit bearing No. CS(OS)166\/2008 and despite<\/p>\n
having knowledge about the abandonment which is referred in the said<\/p>\n
suit the said application was assigned in favour of M\/s. Jain Industries.<\/p>\n
66.        It is clear from the facts that the expression \u201ewater boiler\u201f<\/p>\n
was already split in the year 1994 on the basis of the assignment deed<\/p>\n
dated 09.03.1994. By the assignment deed dated 01.04.1999 between<\/p>\n
M\/s. Classic Equipments Pvt. Ltd. and Defendant No.4, the assignor<\/p>\n
could not have under any circumstances assigned the items after the<\/p>\n
execution of deed of assignment dated 9.3.1994 as item\/products \u201ewater<\/p>\n
boiler\u201f was already deleted from the said registration no.319955 by<\/p>\n
virtue of the assignment deed dated 09.03.1994.\n<\/p>\n
67.        The items which are subject matter of assignment deed dated<\/p>\n
09.03.1994, the assignor or Defendant No.4 cannot subsequently claim<\/p>\n
any rights in pending applications or registered Trade Marks whether<\/p>\n
those are specifically mentioned or not in the deed of assignment<\/p>\n
otherwise, the very purpose of assignment of the mark is defeated.<\/p>\n
68.        It is also pertinent to mention that Defendant No.4 was aware<\/p>\n
of the assignment made in favour of M\/s. Vidyut Udyog by M\/s. Classic<\/p>\n
Equipments Pvt. Ltd. on 09.03.1994. The said Defendant No.4 was also<\/p>\n
aware about the taking over of M\/s. Vidyut Udyog by the Plaintiff on<\/p>\n
02.04.1997 as the said Defendant was one of the Directors in the<\/p>\n
Plaintiff company at that point of time and only resigned from the<\/p>\n
Directorship of the Plaintiff company on 01.10.1997. Claiming any<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                            Page 21 of 25<\/span>
\n right on the basis of assignment deed dated 01.04.1997 after the<\/p>\n
retirement from the Directorship of the Plaintiff company on 01.10.1997<\/p>\n
shows the mala fide intention of the Defendant No.4.<\/p>\n
69.          There is a malafide intention on part of defendant No.4 by<\/p>\n
filing a fresh application for the same items in the Trademark Registry<\/p>\n
in the year 2009 after having knowledge that the goods in question had<\/p>\n
already been assigned in favour of the predecessor in interest of the<\/p>\n
Plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
70.          This Court is of the considered view that any order passed or<\/p>\n
entry made in the Register of Trademarks in relation to the assignment<\/p>\n
of the trademark and\/or change in the constitution contrary to the valid<\/p>\n
written document\/assignment is null and void and is to be treated as<\/p>\n
against the law. The Court dealing with the dispute can ignore the said<\/p>\n
entry if found that the party has obtained the same by making<\/p>\n
misrepresentation or by any other illegal manner. An entry made in the<\/p>\n
Register on the basis of misrepresentation or fraud, cannot disentitle the<\/p>\n
valid rights of a party who has become the lawful owner of the<\/p>\n
trademark by virtue of a valid document. In other words, the effect of<\/p>\n
proprietary rights acquired by the party by means of valid document<\/p>\n
cannot be lost on the basis of wrongful entry if made.<\/p>\n
71.          The next submission of the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
Defendants is that Defendant No.4 has been using the trademark<\/p>\n
“JOHNSON” in relation to water heater since 1999 after the assignment<\/p>\n
deed dated 01.04.1994.\n<\/p>\n
72.          The documents filed by the Defendants have been examined<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                           Page 22 of 25<\/span>
\n by this Court. One more opportunity was given to the parties to produce<\/p>\n
cogent evidence in order to show that they have been using the<\/p>\n
trademark “JOHNSON” in relation to water heater during the course of<\/p>\n
hearing, since 1999. Prima facie there is no cogent evidence produced<\/p>\n
by the defendants to show the continuous use of the mark in relation to<\/p>\n
the goods in question. From the document, no doubt, it appeared that the<\/p>\n
defendants have been using the trademark “JOHNSON” in relation to<\/p>\n
various electric and electronic goods, however, except vis-\u00e0-vis the<\/p>\n
product water heater.\n<\/p>\n
73.        On the other hand, the Plaintiff has been able to establish a<\/p>\n
prima facie case in its favour as there was a valid assignment deed in<\/p>\n
favour of M\/s. Vidyut Udyog which was acquired by the Plaintiff. The<\/p>\n
Plaintiff has become the subsequent registered proprietor of the<\/p>\n
trademark “JOHNSON” in relation to the goods in question. Necessary<\/p>\n
entry in this regard has already been made in the register of Trademarks.<\/p>\n
74.        The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the Plaintiff<\/p>\n
and against the Defendants as the Defendants were fully aware from day<\/p>\n
one that the item in question had been assigned in favour of the<\/p>\n
Plaintiff\u201fs predecessor in interest. On the other hand, the Defendant<\/p>\n
No.4 is using the trademark “JOHNSON” in relation to electric kettles,<\/p>\n
toasters, ceiling fans, pressure cookers, mixer grinders, vacuum<\/p>\n
cleaners, hand blenders, electric tandoors, heat convectors etc. as per the<\/p>\n
documents filed by the Defendant no. 4 for which the plaintiff has raised<\/p>\n
no objection.\n<\/p>\n
75.        The Defendant No.4 if authorized by M\/s. Classic<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                            Page 23 of 25<\/span>
\n Equipments Pvt. Ltd. is also entitled to use the mark “JOHNSON” in<\/p>\n
respect of instant type geysers.      However, the Defendants are not<\/p>\n
entitled to use the trademark “JOHNSON” in relation to the water<\/p>\n
heaters (electric) in any manner.\n<\/p>\n
76.        From the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that if<\/p>\n
the injunction is not granted in favour of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff will<\/p>\n
suffer irreparable loss and injury in its business.<\/p>\n
77.        Therefore, till the disposal of the suit, the Plaintiff is entitled<\/p>\n
to an injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents or<\/p>\n
anyone acting on their behalf from using the trademark “JOHNSON” in<\/p>\n
relation to electric water heaters (excluding the instant type geysers),<\/p>\n
directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever.<\/p>\n
78.        By following the decision of the Apex Court in terms of<\/p>\n
paragraph 37 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Salem<\/p>\n
Advocate Bar Association Vs. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344<\/p>\n
wherein the Supreme Court has said that it is high time that actual<\/p>\n
compensatory costs be imposed with respect to legal proceedings as<\/p>\n
well as in light of Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which<\/p>\n
provides that costs have to follow.         In view of the fact that the<\/p>\n
defendant No. 4 has in this case knowingly contested the interim<\/p>\n
application for injunction despite having the knowledge that the<\/p>\n
mark in question in relation to the particular goods has already been<\/p>\n
assigned in favour of the plaintiff\u201fs predecessors in business by virtue of<\/p>\n
assignment deed dated 09.03.1994 and the necessary entry has been<\/p>\n
made in the Register of Trade Marks by the Trade Marks Registry still<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                              Page 24 of 25<\/span>
\n he had chosen to raise false and frivolous pleas in the written-statement<\/p>\n
and reply to the injunction application. In lieu of this Defendant No.4<\/p>\n
shall bear costs of Rs. one lac to be deposited in the name of Registrar<\/p>\n
General of this court within two weeks from today, who will make the<\/p>\n
total amount available for utilization of Juvenile Justice.<\/p>\n
79.        It is made clear that any observation made herein shall be<\/p>\n
treated as tentative in nature and shall not constitute any expression of<\/p>\n
final opinion on the issues involved and shall have no bearing on the<\/p>\n
final merit of the case and submissions of the parties in the suit.<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008<\/p>\n
           List before the Roster Bench on 27th April, 2010.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                              MANMOHAN SINGH, J.\n<\/p>\n
MARCH 25, 2010
\nacm<\/p>\n
CS (OS) No. 816\/2008                                             Page 25 of 25<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court M\/S. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. vs M\/S. H.E. Industries & Ors. on 25 March, 2010 Author: Manmohan Singh * HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI + IA No. 5352\/2008 in CS (OS) No. 816\/2008 M\/s. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. ……Plaintiff Through: Ms. Pratibha M. Singh with Mr. Deepak Gogia, Advs. Versus […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-231464","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. vs M\/S. H.E. Industries & Ors. on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. vs M\/S. H.E. Industries & Ors. on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-11-30T03:47:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\/S. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. vs M\/S. H.E. Industries & Ors. on 25 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-30T03:47:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":6068,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010\",\"name\":\"M\/S. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. vs M\/S. H.E. Industries & Ors. on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-11-30T03:47:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\/S. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. vs M\/S. H.E. Industries & Ors. on 25 March, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. vs M\/S. H.E. Industries & Ors. on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. vs M\/S. H.E. Industries & Ors. on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-11-30T03:47:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. vs M\/S. H.E. Industries & Ors. on 25 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-30T03:47:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010"},"wordCount":6068,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010","name":"M\/S. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. vs M\/S. H.E. Industries & Ors. on 25 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-11-30T03:47:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-johnson-appliances-p-ltd-vs-ms-h-e-industries-ors-on-25-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Johnson Appliances (P) Ltd. vs M\/S. H.E. Industries & Ors. on 25 March, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231464","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=231464"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231464\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231464"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231464"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231464"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}