KRBL LTD VS RAKESH SETHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 
 
 
  CS(OS) 1470/2013
 
 
 
  KRBL LTD ..... Plaintiff
 
  Through Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Santosh Kumar and Mr. A.A. Suman, Adv.
 
 
 
 
versus
 
 
 
  RAKESH SETHI ..... Defendant
 
  Through None.
 
 
 
  CORAM:
 
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
 
   O R D E R
 
   29.07.2013
 
  IA. 11734/2013 (exemption)
 
  Exemption is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
 
  CS(OS) No. 1470/2013
 
  Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
 
  Issue summons to the defendant by ordinary and speed post,
  returnable for 19.09.2013.
 
  I.A. 11733/2013 (u/O 39 R 1 and 2 CPC)
 
  Issue notice to the defendant by ordinary process and speed post,
  returnable on 19th September, 2013.
 
  This is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. The
  case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff, through its predecessors, in
  the year 1993 adopted and started using the trade mark/ label INDIA GATE
  with device of INDIA GATE in respect of rice business. The plaintiff has
  been carrying on
 
  CS(OS) 1470/2013 page 1 of 3
 
  its business in India as well as overseas, the details of which are
  mentioned in para 6 of the plaint. The application for registration of
  said trademark is already pending since 17.03.1999 and other applications
  are also pending claiming the user since 1993. The plaintiff is also
  promoting the said trade mark through various print media as well as
  entertainment channels e.g. Star T.V., Aaj Tak, NDTV and India TV.
 
  According to the plaintiff the said trade mark has acquired primary
  significant with the goods and business of the plaintiff and in view of
  the unique goodwill and reputation it has earned, it has become well-
  known trade mark within the meaning of Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade
  Marks Act, 1999.
 
  The details of the various applications made by the plaintiff for
  registration of its trade mark INDIA GATE in various classes has been
  elaborated in para 11 of the plaint. The sales of the plaintiff under the
  trade mark and label of INDIA GATE are elaborated in para 16 of the
  plaint. It now alleged that the defendant has recently adopted the device
  of INDIA GATE in relation to his goods and business and that the trade
  mark/label /domain name of the defendant in relation to its impugned
  goods and business is identical with the plaintiff?s trade mark in each
  and every respect phonetically, visually, structurally and its basic
  idea. It is further stated that the action of the defendant is in
  violation of the plaintiff?s aforesaid trade mark and thereby passing off
  to enable others to pass off their goods and business as that of the
  plaintiff.
 
  The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in its favour. Balance
  of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff. In case an ex parte ad
  interim
 
  CS(OS) 1470/2013 page 2 of 3
 
  injunction is not granted, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and
  injury.
 
  In view of the above, the defendant, his agents and servants are
  restrained by way of an ex parte ad interim injunction from using the
  trade mark INDIA GATE with the device INDIA GATE or any other trade
  mark/label/domain name identical with or deceptively similar thereto in
  relation to their goods and business of grains, spices, tea and allied
  and other goods till further orders.
 
  Plaintiff shall comply with provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC
  within a period of five days.
 
 
    JAYANT NATH, J
 
  JULY 29, 2013/RB
 
  CS(OS) 1470/2013 page 3 of 3
 
 
 
  $ A31
  

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
 
 
 
  CS(OS) 1470/2013 and IA No. 11733/2013
 
 
 
  KRBL LTD ..... Plaintiff
 
  Through Mr. Ajay Maitabh Suman and Mr.Dharmendra Tyagi, Advocate
 
 
 
 
versus
 
 
 
  RAKESH SETHI ..... Defendant
 
  Through Defendant-in-person.
 
  CORAM:
 
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
 
   O R D E R
 
   19.09.2013
 
  Defendant has appeared in person. A photocopy of his identify card,
  namely, the driving licence is taken on record. Defendant states that he
  does not intend to use the impugned trade mark ?INDIA GATE? or the domain
  name ?www.indiagategroup.com? or ?India Gate Industries?. He submits
  that he will abide by this undertaking.
 
  In view of the said undertaking given by the defendant, the present
  suit is decreed in terms of para 42(a) of the plaint. The defendant shall
  abide by the statement made in Court. The plaintiff does not press other
  reliefs.
 
  All pending applications stand disposed of.
 
 
 
  JAYANT NATH, J
 
  SEPTEMBER 19, 2013
 
  rb
 
 
 
  $ A8

M/S. KHUSHI RAM BEHARI LAL VS P.V. KANAKARAJ TRADING AS KALPATHARU TRADING CO, HON'BLE JUSTICE MANMOHAN

$~

*                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   CS(COMM) 1307/2016

M/S. KHUSHI RAM BEHARI LAL ..... Plaintiff Through Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman with Mr. Kapil Kumar Giri and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocates

versus

P.V. KANAKARAJ TRADING AS

KALPATHARU TRADING CO.

Through           None

..... Defendant

%

Date of Decision : 05th December, 2017

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN, J (Oral):

1.                 Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, passing off, delivery up etc. The prayer clause in the suit is reproduced hereinbelow:-

(a)              For a decree of permanent injunction restraining all the defendant by themselves as also through their individual proprietors, partners, directors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockiest and all others acting for and on their behalf from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising or by any other mode or manner dealing in or using the impugned trademark TAJ MAHAL WITH DEVIDE OF TAJ MAHAL and/or any other trademark/label, identical

CS(COMM) 1307/2016                                                                                                   Page 1 of 7

and/or deceptively similar thereto in relation to their impugned goods and business of rice and related/allied products and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to:

(i)       Infringe the plaintiff’s copyright in the said trademark/label TAJ MAHAL label (device of TAJ MAHAL)

(ii)    Passing off and violation of plaintiff’s common law right in the said trademark/label TAJ MAHAL label (device of TAJ MAHAL).

(iii)    Dilution of plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation to the

plaintiff’s well known trademark/label said trademark/label TAJ MAHAL label (device of TAJ MAHAL).

(b)              Restraining the defendant from disposing off or dealing with its assets including its shops and premises as mentioned in the memo of parties of the plant and its stocks-in-trade or any other assets a may be brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court during the course of the proceedings and on the defendant disclosure thereof and which the defendant are called upon to disclose and/or on its ascertainment by the plaintiff as the plaintiff is not aware of the same as per Section 135 (2) (c) of the Trade

Marks Act, 1999 as it could adversely affect the plaintiff’s ability to recover the costs and pecuniary relief(s) thereon.

(c)               For an order for delivery up of all the impugned finished and unfinished materials bearing the impugned an violative trademark TAJ MAHAL with device of TAJ MAHAL or any other deceptively similar trademark/label including its blocks, labels, display boards, sign boards, trade literatures and goods etc. to the plaintiff for the purposes of destruction and erasure.

CS(COMM) 1307/2016                                                                                                   Page 2 of 7

(d)              For a decree for grant of damages in the sum of Rs.20,01,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh and One Thousand only) from the defendants to the plaintiff.

(e)               For an order for cost of proceedings.

(f)                For such other and further order as this Hon’ble

Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2.                      On 19^th December, 2013, this Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“Accordingly, the defendant is restrained by way of ex parte ad interim injunction from selling or dealing with the product rice or allied products using the trade mark TAJ MAHAL on the device TAJ MAHAL till further orders. It is clarified that defendant may sell the products after changing the packaging and without using the impugned trade mark.

Plaintiff shall comply with provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within a period of 3 weeks from today.”

3.                 On  16^th  September,  2016  the  defendant’s  applications  being

I.A.No.5529/2014     under       order        VII        Rule        11       CPC        and

I.A.No.8938/2014 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC were dismissed

and  the  ex  parte  interim injunction  was  confirmed.   The  relevant

portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“11. At the present stage, when the matter is yet to go to trial, the Court cannot insist that the full particulars of where precisely the Defendant was found selling its products in Delhi have to be set out in the plaint itself. That would be a matter for evidence. Consequently, this

CS(COMM) 1307/2016                                                                                                   Page 3 of 7

Court is unable to accept the plea of the Defendant that the averments in the plaint are insufficient for the Court to entertain the action of passing off of the trademark of the Plaintiff.”

4.                 Despite  entering  appearance  and  having  filed  the  written

statement, the defendant stopped appearing after 7^th February, 2017. Accordingly, it was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 3^rd August, 2017 and the plaintiff led its ex-parte evidence.

5.                 Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of processing and marketing Basmati rice including exports thereof. He states that the plaintiff is the prior adopter and user of the mark TAJ MAHAL along with TAJ MAHAL device in relation to rice since the year 1978.

6.                 He further states that the plaintiff has filed an application dated

27  ^th February, 1989 for registration of the mark TAJ MAHAL claiming user since 1^st July, 1978. However, the same is pending consideration on account of objections raised by third parties.

7.                 Mr. Suman states that the plaintiff’s label bears the original

artistic feature created by the plaintiff and the same constitutes an original artistic work within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1957. He states that since the adoption of the mark TAJ MAHAL along with TAJ MAHAL device, the plaintiff has been continuously and exclusively using the same to the exclusion of others.

8.                 Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant is using the mark/label TAJ MAHAL along with device TAJ MAHAL in relation to same product i.e. rice dishonestly and fraudulently in order

to  take   advantage   of   the   plaintiff’s   established   reputation    and

CS(COMM) 1307/2016                                                                                                   Page 4 of 7

goodwill.

9.                 He  states  that  the  defendant  had  fraudulently  applied  for

registration of the impugned mark/device on 15^th April, 2010 claiming use since 11^th January, 2000.

10.            Having perused the paper book, this Court is of the opinion that the plea of the mark being public juris raised by the defendant in its written statement cannot be accepted as no evidence in this regard has been led by the defendant.

11.            This Court is also of the view that the plaintiff on the basis of the bills/invoices filed by it in support of the present plaint and exhibited as Ex. PW1/8 (Colly) has been able to establish prior use of the mark TAJ MAHAL with device TAJ MAHAL atleast since 1980.

12.            This Court is further of the view that though the defendant in its written statement has claimed use of the mark TAJ MAHAL with device TAJ MAHAL since 2000, yet it has not filed any document to establish the same and the only document relied upon by the defendant is its application for registration of the impugned mark/device filed in 2010.

13.            This Court is also of the opinion that the defendant’s mark TAJ

MAHAL with device TAJ MAHAL is bound to cause confusion and deception among the public at large, consumers, business and trade circles and is likely to suggest that there is some nexus between the plaintiff and defendant. The mark/device of the plaintiff as well as the defendant is reproduced hereinbelow:

CS(COMM) 1307/2016                                                                                                   Page 5 of 7

Plaintiff’s Mark                                               Defendant’s Mark

14.            In any event, as the averments in the plaint have not been rebutted by the defendant nor did the defendant bother to put forth its stand in spite of ample opportunities given by this Court, they are deemed to have been admitted.

15.            In the opinion of this Court the triple identity test is satisfied as the defendant has made use of a deceptively similar mark i.e. TAJ MAHAL as well TAJ MAHAL device in relation to identical goods (rice) having identical trade channels (products sold vide same trade channels).

16.            However, as far as the prayer with regard to the damages is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that since the plaintiff has not led any evidence with respect to the quantum of damages suffered by the plaintiff, the same cannot be granted in light of the Division Bench

CS(COMM) 1307/2016                                                                                                   Page 6 of 7

judgment of this Court in Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited, 2014 (57) PTC 495 [Del][DB]. In fact, this Court recently in Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited Vs.

HRCN Cable Network, CS(COMM) 48/2015 dated 09^th October, 2017 has held as under:-

“19. However, this Court is not satisfied on the evidence led in the present case that the compensation awarded is inadequate in the circumstances having regard to the three categories in Rookes v. Barnard, [1964] 1 All ER 367 and also the five principles in Cassell & Co. Ltd. v. Broome, 1972 AC 1027. In the event punitive damages are awarded in the present case, it would be an ad-hoc judge centric award of damages, which the Division Bench specifically prohibited in Hindustan Unilever Limited (supra)…”

17.            Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, mandate of law and the persistent conduct of the defendant in selling products bearing the mark TAJ MAHAL with device TAJ MAHAL, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a) and (e) of the prayer clause along with the actual costs incurred by the plaintiff. The cost shall amongst others include

the lawyers’ fees, local commissioner’s fee as well as the amounts

spent on purchasing the court fees.   Registry is directed to prepare a

decree sheet accordingly.

MANMOHAN, J

DECEMBER 05, 2017

KA/DK

CS(COMM) 1307/2016                                                                                                   Page 7 of 7