Irrational restrictions may amount to waiver of the rights of a person. Imposing such restraints which have no rationale and justification qua and are based on prejudice to the contentions of other party can deprive a person from exercising his right. This principle was laid down in the case of Quikr India Private Limited vs. Nike Innovate C.V. & Anr. [FAO. 16/2021] by the Delhi high Court presided over by J. Sanjeev Sachdeva.
The Appellant filed this appeal impugning the order passed by the court earlier, whereby the trial court has, on the very first date, disposed of the application filed by the respondent under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC and granted an exparte injunction, inter-alia, restraining the appellant from using manufacturing, selling, soliciting, displaying, advertising by visual, audio, print mode or by any other mode or by any other mode or manner dealing in or selling/soliciting, intending to sell or solicit through www.quikr.com and their mobile application under the name of Quikr or through any other online websites and/or online platforms or through social medias or in any manner using the impugned counterfeit goods under impugned trademarks/logos Nike, Swoosh Device, Nike Pro, Nike+, Nike Air Jordan, Jordan, Jump man (device) in relation to their impugned goods and business and from doing any other acts pre-deeds amounting to or likely to infringement of respondent’s registered trademarks/logos. The Appellants were further restrained from disposing off or dealing with their assets including their premises at the addresses mentioned in the Memos of Parties of the plaint and their stocks-in-trade till further orders.
The honorable Delhi High court contended, “Pending consideration of the application under Order 39 rule 1 by the trial court, the restraint placed on the appellant from using,; infringement of respondent’s copyrights in the said trademarks/Logos; passing off of the respondent’s rights in respondent’s said trademarks/Logos; violation of respondent’s rights in its trade name/Logos shall continue till the disposal of the application under order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC.” The court further held, “However, with regard to the restraint on the appellant from disposing of or dealing with their assets, including their premises at the addresses mentioned in the Memo of Parties is concerned, since there is no rationale or justification qua the same and admittedly are not subject matter of the Suit, the same cannot be sustained and accordingly, the order to the said extent is set aside. This would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and that would not, in any manner, amount to waiver of the rights of the plaintiff. Irrational restrictions may amount to waiver of the rights of a person”.
