Facts & Background

• Sunil Mittal and Darzi (India) LLP (Respondent - Plaintiff), were owners of the 'THE DARZI' mark since 1981 for tailoring and clothing services.
• M/s Darzi on Call, (Appellant - Defendant) formed in April 2015 and later incorporated, offers similar tailoring services under the "DARZI ON CALL" name.
• Despite a cease-and-desist notice in October 2015, the Appellant-Defendant resumed use in August 2016.
• The Respondent - Plaintiff sought an injunction against the Appellant - defendant for using 'DARZI' or similar marks, claiming trademark infringement and passing off.
• On 19th April 2017, the Learned Single Judge issued an interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the word "DARZI" in its trademark.
• The Appellant filed an appeal against this order, leading to interim arrangements being made by the Court on 12th May 2023. These arrangements involved modifications specified in the interim order.
• The Appellant stated that the review of the 12th May 2023 order was necessary due to an error apparent on the record.
• This error arose from the Court's reliance on a misstatement by the Respondents' senior counsel regarding the application under Order VI rule 17 of the CPC. The misstatement concerned the nature of the registrations, which were for the composite logo mark, not the word mark “Darzi/The Darzi” in various Classes as the Court was led to believe.
• The Court's order erroneously granted independent rights over the word mark to the Respondents. The Appellant clarified that it had not claimed exclusivity over the word “Darzi” alone but had asserted rights over the logo mark only.
• The petition sought a review of the 12th May 2023 order under Section 114 and Order XLVII rule 1 read with Section 151 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the grounds mentioned above.