This analytical legal article discusses the distinction between non-disclosure of cause of action and defective cause of action in the context of a trademark infringement case. The case in question involves an appeal challenging the rejection of a plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C) on the ground that the plaint does not disclose the cause of action. The crux of the dispute centers around the timing of trademark registration and its impact on the existence of the cause of action for trademark infringement.

Non-Disclosure of Cause of Action:
Non-disclosure of cause of action occurs when a plaintiff fails to adequately present the essential facts and circumstances that give rise to the claim. In the case at hand, the respondent contends that the appellants did not have a cause of action for trademark infringement at the time of filing the suit since their device/logo "1RM Fitness" was not registered as a trademark on the date of institution of the suit, which was 25th September 2020. As per the respondent's argument, the cause of action did not exist on the specified date, and thus, the plaint should be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the C.P.C.

Defective Cause of Action:
On the other hand, defective cause of action pertains to a situation where the cause of action exists but is improperly presented or formulated by the plaintiff. The appellants argued that a typographical error occurred in para 18 of the plaint, which was meant to state the date when the cause of action first arose to file the suit.

They contend that the omission of this date should not result in the rejection of the plaint, as the defective cause of action should be decided during the trial and not at the stage of plaint scrutiny.

Analysis:
The crucial issue in this case is whether the typographical error regarding the date of the cause of action should be accepted by the court. The respondent contends that such an admission cannot be allowed to mitigate the absence of trademark registration at the time of filing the suit. According to their argument, the error is not merely a minor mistake but rather indicative of the appellants' lack of due diligence and failure to comply with mandatory requirements for initiating a trademark infringement claim.

The respondent further emphasizes that the cause of action for trademark infringement arises from the existence of a registered trademark. Since the appellants did not possess a registered trademark at the time of filing the suit, there was no question of infringement, as the trademark was not statutorily recognized. The registration of the trademark on 17th March 2021, long after the suit was filed, is seen as a clear indication of the appellants' failure to adhere to the statutory requirement, further supporting the contention that the cause of action was lacking.

The Courr observed that the appellants admitted to a typographical error in stating the date when the cause of action first arose in their trademark infringement claim. However, the respondent argues that this admission cannot be accepted to overlook the absence of trademark registration at the time of filing the suit. Since the trademark was not statutorily recognized due to late registration on 17th March 2021, the respondent rightly contended that there was no infringement.

This also highlights the appellants' lack of due diligence and failure to comply with mandatory requirements regarding keeping the date of the cause of action empty in that para. This can not be regarded as merely defective casue of action. In fact this is a case of non disclosure of cause of action. In view of the above finding the Appeal was rejected.

The Concluding Note:
There is distinction between non-disclosure of cause of action and defective cause of action is pivotal in determining the fate of the plaint in this trademark infringement case. The court will have to assess whether the absence of trademark registration at the time of filing the suit indeed renders the cause of action non-existent or if it can be categorized as a defect in the presentation of the cause of action.

The Case Law Discussed:
Case Title: 1RM Fitness Equipment Vs Ms. Priyanka Barua
Case No. Interim Application No.1360 of 2023 in First Appeal No. 141 of 2023
Date of Judgement/Order:02.08.2023
Neutral Citation: NA
Name of Hon'ble Court: Bombay High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prithviraj K Chavan, HJ

Disclaimer:
Information contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for legal advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the facts and law involved herein.