In this case, M/s. Maharashtra Safe Chemist and Distributors Alliance Limited ("Plaintiff") filed a commercial intellectual property suit against Sachin Bhausaheb Bhalekar and another ("Defendants"). The Plaintiff sought various reliefs, including the removal of a trademark registered by Defendant No. 1. The Registrar of Trademarks had already passed an order allowing the Plaintiff's rectification petition and removing the impugned trademark from the register.

The court had previously held that the reliefs sought in prayer clauses (a) and (b) were rendered infructuous. The Plaintiff now pressed for a decree in terms of prayer clause (c) based on the events that occurred after filing the suit. The issue before the court was whether the Plaintiff was entitled to the requested decree.

Issues Presented:

• Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree in terms of prayer clause (c) of the suit?
• Whether the Defendants and other concerned persons have exploited or used the disputed trademark, infringing the Plaintiff's registered trademark?

Rules of Law:
The relevant legal principles applicable to the case include:

• The authority and jurisdiction of the Registrar of Trademarks to remove a trademark from the register.
• The requirements for granting a decree in a commercial intellectual property suit.
• The principles of trademark infringement and the protection of registered trademarks.

Analysis and Reasoning:
The court considered the affidavit filed by Defendant No. 1, which stated that he had sought legal advice and submitted an application for a trademark before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to financial difficulties and health issues, the Defendant had not used or exploited the disputed trademark for any commercial activities.

The court noted that the Plaintiff's concern was that others might exploit the trademark, but the Defendant and other concerned persons had not used it. The court held that since the reliefs sought in prayer clauses (a) and (b) were already rendered infructuous, and the Defendant and other concerned persons had not used the trademark, there was no necessity to grant a decree in terms of prayer clause (c).

Holding and Decision:
The court held that the Plaintiff's suit and interim application were rendered infructuous since the registered trademark had already been removed from the register by the Registrar of Trademarks. Therefore, no relief was granted to the Plaintiff. The court disposed of the suit and the interim application.

Implications and Significance:
This decision signifies that when the impugned trademark has already been removed from the register by the Registrar of Trademarks, and the Defendant and other concerned persons have not used the disputed trademark for any commercial activities, there may be no necessity to grant further reliefs to the plaintiff in a commercial intellectual property suit.

Conclusion:
The court held that the suit and interim application were rendered infructuous as the impugned trademark had already been removed from the register. Since the Defendant and other concerned persons had not used the trademark, the court found no necessity to grant a decree. This decision emphasizes the importance of the actions taken by the Registrar of Trademarks and the non-exploitation of the disputed trademark by the Defendants and other concerned parties.