The appeal was filed challenging an order dated 16th May, 2017, which restrained the appellant from using the trademark "GOLDEN GATE" in relation to rice and other goods. The appellant's counsel sought discharge from appearance due to failed mediation and lack of instructions from the appellant.

Key Developments:

• The appellant's counsel repeatedly sought discharge from appearance, citing failed mediation and lack of instructions.
• The Court issued notices to the appellant, which were returned unserved, indicating the appellant's disinterest in pursuing the appeal.
• The respondent's counsel highlighted the prolonged pendency of the matter, the costs incurred by the respondent, and the judicial time consumed.

Decision:
The Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and default, noting the appellant's lack of interest and the repeated failures to pursue the case effectively. The Court imposed a cost of ₹10 lacs payable by the appellant to the respondent within eight weeks.

The appeal filed by M/S SAI TRADING COMPANY was dismissed due to the following reasons:

• Non-Prosecution: The appellant demonstrated a clear lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The repeated failures to provide instructions to their counsel and the repeated requests for discharge from appearance indicated that the appellant was not actively engaging with the legal process.
   
• Lack of Appearance: The appellant did not take any steps to appear before the court, either personally or through another counsel, despite being issued notices by the court. The notices sent to the appellant were returned unserved, as the appellant could not be located at the provided address.
   
• Failed Mediation: The court noted that mediation attempts between the parties had repeatedly failed. The appellant's counsel informed the court that the mediation process had not yielded any results, further indicating the appellant's disinterest in resolving the matter.
   
• Judicial Time and Costs: The respondent's counsel highlighted that the matter had been pending since 2017 and had already gone through 36 hearings. The respondent had incurred various costs in defending the appeal, including the engagement of a Senior Advocate on multiple occasions. The court took note of the substantial judicial time and resources that had been consumed due to the appellant's negligence.
   
• Precedent and Guidelines: The court referred to previous judgments and guidelines related to the imposition of costs in commercial matters. These judgments emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and the need to penalize parties who waste judicial time and resources.

Case Citation: Sai Trading Company Vs KRBL Limited: 29.07.2024 : W.P.(C) 10030/2024: 2024:DHC:5864-DB: Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna H.J.

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539