Delhi High Court
Xerox Corporation vs Shailesh Patel on 20 February, 2007
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
CS (OS) 2349/06
1. Some of the defendants have not filed the written statement. The said defendants to file the written statement within 15 days. Documents, if any, be filed by the parties within the same period of time.
2. List on 18.04.2007 at 2.00 P.M.
IA Nos. 14209/06 (Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC) and 685/07 (Order 39 Rule 4 CPC)
3. Learned Counsel for the parties state that it has not been possible to arrive at any agreed interim arrangement. In the circumstances, these applications will have to be heard on the date to be fixed.
4. The only question to be examined today is what is the interim arrangement till such time the interim applications are heard. Interim arrangements are already in place in terms of the order dated 11.12.2006, as modified by the order dated 14.12.2006 read with the order dated 19.1.2007. This takes care of the cases where there are vendors using certain machines of xerox, who have been permitted to carry on operations subject to the condition that the permanent sticker on the machine of xerox is either removed or disfigured. There is no dispute that this arrangement can continue till the next date when the interim applications shall be heard.
5. The only aspect to be examined is the request by certain defendants, who are importing or selling xerox second-hand machines. It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the plaintiff that there can be no such importation at all irrespective of the fact that they have requisite documents for import. This plea is based inter-alia, on the provisions of Section 30(3) and (4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the said Act'). Learned Counsel also points out that the plaintiffs in the U.S. have arrangements whereby they sell second-hand machines with the stipulation that the user of such machines can only be in U.S.A.
6. Learned senior counsel for the defendants, however, points out that there is more than the said source for obtaining second-hand machines since it is possible that a party, who purchases a machine of xerox, decides to sell the same to a third party without entering into any written agreement or exchange scheme with the plaintiff. Learned Counsel further submits that the interest of the plaintiffs is taken care of Sub-section (4) of Section 30 of the said Act since the defendants undertake that in case the goods are changed or impaired, they will not put the same into market. Thus it is stated that only such of the machines be permitted to be imported, which have proper documentation and there is no change or impairment. In case after importation, there is any change or impairment, the condition of removal of the xerox sticker would have to apply to those machines.
7. I do not deem it necessary to go into the merits of submissions, as it may prejudice either of the parties at the hearing of the interlocutory applications. Suffice to say that at this stage, I am of the considered view that it will be appropriate to permit import of such xerox machines, which have proper documentation provided there is no change or impairment in the machine. Such prohibition of change or impairment is not to be confined only to the physical characteristics, but also in respect of the working systems and the software to be used for the said purpose. In case after importation, there are any changes, the sticker of xerox must be removed so as to indicate to the purchaser that the machine is not being sold as a xerox machine.
CS (OS) 2343/06
8. The defendants to file the written statement within 15 days. Documents, if any, be filed by the parties within the same period of time
9. List on 18.04.2007 at 2.00 P.M
IA 14190/06 (O.39 R.1 and 2 CPC) and 1915/06 (O.39 R.4 CPC)
10. It is agreed that till hearing of these applications on the next date, the interim arrangement of 19.1.2007 in CS(OS) 2285/06 and 2349/06 shall also apply in the present case.
11. List on 18.04.2007 at 2.00 P.M.
