I.A. No.3568/2020

1. Allowed, subject to the plaintiff placing on record the original documents as and when called upon by the Court to do so and filing legible copies of dim documents within four weeks from today.

2. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.

I.A. No.3567/2020

3. For the reasons given in the application, the plaintiff is accorded 30 days to file additional documents insofar as those documents are concerned which are not in the plaintiff’s power, possession and/or control.

4. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.

CS(COMM) 113/2020 & I.A.No.3566/2020

5. The case set up by the plaintiff is that the defendant is not only infringing its registered trademark “Snapdeal”, but is also indulging in acts, which tend to degrade or tarnish its registered trademarks.

6. Furthermore, the plaintiff claims that the defendant has resorted to false advertisement inasmuch as it seeks to inform the world at large that the goods available on its website are cheaper than those which are available on the plaintiff’s website.

7. It is the assertion of the plaintiff that both the plaintiff as well as the defendant provide a market-platform whereat the sellers and the buyers converge to strike a bargain that is best suited to their purpose. In other words, it is contended that it would be nearly impossible for anyone to peg the price of the goods offered on the website of either the plaintiff or the defendant to a particular amount as the price itself is dynamic.

7.1 Besides this, the plaintiff asserts, as alluded to hereinabove, that the defendant’s use of the byline “everything cheaper than Snapdeal” in its advertising campaign is false. For this purpose, my attention has been drawn to not only the screenshots, which are set forth in paragraph 7 of the captioned application [i.e. I.A. No.3566/2020], but also to the documents appended on pages 29 to 36 of the documents filed by the plaintiff to demonstrate the falsity of claim made by the defendant.

8. A perusal of the documents appended on pages 29 to 36 would show that goods offered on the website of the plaintiff are, in fact, cheaper than similar goods offered on the website of the defendant.

9. Thus, given the assertions made in the plaint and the documents placed on record, I am, at least at this stage, of the view that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. The balance of convenience also appears to be in favour of the plaintiff.

9.1 Furthermore, if the defendant is allowed to carry on what the plaintiff claims is a false advertisement campaign, it would degrade its trademarks and reputation.

10. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the defendant is restrained from using the byline “everything cheaper than Snapdeal” qua every social media platform or otherwise.

11. Renotify the matter on 23.4.2020.

12. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff will comply with the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC within five days from today.

13. At this stage, Mr. Rao, informs me [more as a matter involving good record and order than anything else] that the pleadings and the orders passed in the proceedings titled Snapdeal Private Limited Vs. Ayush Singhal & Ors. (CS No.873 of 2019) instituted before the Civil Judge, Gurugram have inadvertently not been filed and, therefore, he would require five days to place the same on record.

13.2 The statement of Mr. Rao is taken on record.

14. Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.