Courts not meant to be forum for arm twisting: Delhi High Court pulls up Victoria Cross in trademark dispute with Victorinox

The Delhi High Court on Friday expressed a prima facie view against users of the mark "Victoria Cross", observing that they had tried to mislead the High Court with 'half truths' in an ongoing trademark dispute with Swiss Army Knifemaker, Victorinox. (Dinesh Gupta and ors. Victorinox AG).A Division Bench of Justices Manmohan and Navin Chawla further noted that in a bid to be clever by half, the claimers of "Victoria Cross" (appellants) had tried to annex the declaration against them, along with a police complaint, without mentioning it in the appeal..By a January 27, 2017 declaration, the first appellant, Dinesh Gupta had acknowledged that he had worked for nineteen years under one, Ashok Sawhney and his group companies and that he had not carried on business under the mark "Victoriacross" while he was in Gupta's employment. .Pertinently, he also undertook not to use the brand “Victoriacross” for any kind of business whatsoever in the said declaration. .Added to this, the Court was told that Sawhney had assigned the mark "VICTORIA CROSS" to Victorinox by an assignment deed on July 7, 2020. .The appellants' failure to disclose the declaration properly led the Court to take a prima facie view against them. .".... this Court is of the opinion that the appellants in the present appeal, have tried to mislead this Court by telling half truths i.e. by not disclosing in the appeal that the appellant no.1 was an employee for nineteen years with Mr.Ashok Sawhney (President of M/s Promoshirt SM S.A.). Further, it was not mentioned in the lengthy list of dates and in the appeal upfront that Mr.Ashok Sawhney had assigned the trademark VICTORIA CROSS to the respondent vide Assignment Deed dated 07th July, 2020. The Declaration Deed wherein the appellant no.1 had declared as late as on 27th January, 2017 that he had not carried on any business activity under the mark VICTORIA CROSS and would not use the said mark for any kind of business whatsoever, had not been mentioned in the lengthy list of dates or in the prolix appeal which has grounds running into YY! In a bid to be clever by half, the appellants have annexed the Declaration and the police complaint without referring to them in the Appeal", the Court's order read..The Court note that the appellants had not challenged the validity of the 2017 declaration. Further, the Bench was also not convinced by the appellants' argument that the declaration was a confidential one that was to be torn ultimately.." ... any private arrangement between Mr.Ashok Sawhney and the appellant no.1 to keep the Declaration confidential/private or to be destroyed/torn cannot prevent the Court from investigating the matter and finding the truth. After all, Courts are not meant to be used as a ‘forum for arm twisting’ and that too against the respondent, who had adopted the alleged trademark and device mark in 1884 in the country of its origin and in India since 1984-85 and that too, when the respondent has built a name and reputation for its trademark itself nationally and internationally over a considerable period of time", the Court said. .The Court added that it was virtually impossible for the appellants to have build a name or reputation in the mark "VICTORIA CROSS" between 2017 and July 30, 2019 when the proprieters of Victorinox secured an injunction order from a trial court..The Court also of the view that the appellant-company had contradicted itself at different stages of the appeal."If the submission of learned counsel for the appellants (Victoria Cross) in rejoinder is accepted, it would mean that the Court due to technicalities is not entitled to find out the truth! It would also mean that a party who approaches the Court for grant of a discretionary relief has not to approach the Court with clean hands and with full disclosure of relevant and material facts", the Court observed..In this backdrop, the Court expressed that it was disinclined the entertain the appellants' challenge to the trial court's injunction order. Instead, the Court found that the appellants were, prima facie, liable to be proceeded against under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).."Since the gravamen of the appeal is prima facie falsified by the Declaration Deed ... without disclosing the same in the lengthy list of dates, prolix appeal and opening arguments, this Court is prima facie of the view that Section 340 of Cr.P.C is attracted to the present proceedings," the High Court said. .The Court has directed the appellants to file its response in two weeks before it goes further with proceedings under Section 340, CrPC. The Court also directed both appellants, who are also husband and wife, to be personally present in the Court when the matter is heard next on August 23..Delhi High Court restrains use of 'Good Year' mark in trademark infringement suit by tire company.The appellants were represented by Senior Advocate Mohan Vidhani. Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal and SK Bansal along with advocate Veerendra Kumar Sinha appeared for Victorinox..[Read order]