Whether court has jurisdiction to summon deponent for cross examination in hearing for injunction?

 In Konda Reddy v. G. Venkata Swamy, unreported judgment in C. R. P. No. 4 of 1971, D/- 17-9-1971 (Andh Pra) the plaintiff filed an application for the grant of a temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1, C. P. C. The application was supported by the affidavits of the plaintiff and others. The defendant filed a counter requesting that the application for the temporary injunction may be dismissed. Along with the counter, he filed his own affidavit and the affidavits of four others. The plaintiff filed an application under Order 19, Rule 1, C. P. C. read with Rule 46 of the Civil Rules of Practice requesting the Court to direct the attendance of the four persons, who gave affidavits in favour of the defendant, so that he could cross-examine them. The Sixth Additional Judge allowed the application. The defendant thereupon filed the C. R. P. No. 4 of 1971. Dismissing the revision, Muktadar, J., observed :

"The lower Court has given its reasons before passing the order and has found that the desire of the petitioner for production of the witnesses for cross-examination is bona fide."

Again in B. Lakshmamma v. B. Yadgir Reddy unreported judgment in C. R. P. No. 1990 of 1975, D/- 2-11-1976, Madhava Rao, J., also held that the action of the trial Court in summoning the deponents for cross-examination in a proceeding under Order 39, Rule 1, C. P. C. is not illegal or beyond its powers.

12. Under the circumstances, therefore, the dismissal of the petitioner's application by the learned District Munsif on the ground that he has no jurisdiction at all to summon the deponents in a proceeding under Order 39, Rule 1, C. P. C . is erroneous and cannot be approved. The lower Court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not considering whether, under the circumstances of the case, it is necessary to summon the deponents as prayed for by the petitioner.

 Citation : AIR 1981 AP 406

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

C.R.P. No. 4261 of 1980

Decided On: 07.04.1981

C. Srinivasa Rao and Anr.Vs.K. Manohar Rao and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges: S. Madhusudan Rao, J.

Print Page

What is the difference between trade mark and design?

The "trade mark" and a "design" are entirely different connotations because the "trade mark" is a device, label, colour, name or any other mark put on a product to link it to its manufactuer/producer, who may be the proprietor of the registered trade mark or who might have acquired reputation in an unregistered trade mark on account of its prior use arid reputation in the trade. On the other hand, the "design" is merely a feature of shape, pattern, configuration, ornament or composition of lines or colours applied to an article to make it attractive and appealing to the eye of the consumer. A "trade mark" may also be attractive and appealing to the eye but it should be directly relatable to the producer/manufacturer of the goods whereas the "design" may be merely appealing or attractive to the eye and need not give any indication to the consumer/purchaser about the identity of the manufacturer or producer of the article. The fundamental difference, therefore,' between a "trade mark" and "design" is that "trade mark" signals to the mind the source or identity of the producers/manufacturer of the article whereas "design" appeals to the eye and attracts the consumer/purchaser. It need not necessarily reveal the identity of producer to the consumer though in certain well know designs the identity even may get conveyed. A producer or manufacturer may put his trade mark also on a designed product so that it is conveyed to the consumer that he has produced it.

Delhi High Court

Corning, Incorporated And Ors. vs Raj Kumar Garg And Ors. on 9 September, 2003

Equivalent citations: 2004 (73) DRJ 649, 2004 54 SCL 378 Delhi, 2004 (28) PTC 257

Bench: R Chopra

Print Page