Case Title: Wildcraft India Limited v. Ahmed Ali
Date of Order: 30th January 2025
Case No.: CS(COMM) 26/2023 & I.A. 41666/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:705
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Facts of the Case:Wildcraft India Limited (plaintiff), a well-established manufacturer and distributor of adventure and outdoor equipment, filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Ahmed Ali (defendant) for allegedly infringing its trademarks and copyright. The plaintiff, operating since 1998 and converted into a public company in 2022, has an extensive trademark portfolio, including marks such as ‘WILDCRAFT’, ‘W95’, ‘HYPA’, and ‘HYPASHIELD’.
The defendant was accused of selling counterfeit products like bags, masks, and accessories through various e-commerce platforms, including Amazon and Flipkart, using deceptively similar marks. The defendant neither appeared in court nor filed a written statement despite being duly served, leading to an ex-parte proceeding.
Issues:
1. Whether the defendant’s use of the marks ‘W95’, ‘HYPA’, ‘HYPASHIELD’, and Wildcraft’s logo constituted trademark infringement.
2. Whether the defendant’s conduct amounted to passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff.
3. Whether a summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the CPC was justified in the absence of any defence from the defendant.
Reasoning and Analysis by the Court:
1. Trademark Infringement:
The court found substantial visual and phonetic similarity between the plaintiff’s registered marks and the defendant’s products. The marks used by the defendant were identical or deceptively similar, causing confusion among consumers.
2. Passing Off:
The plaintiff’s longstanding reputation, supported by significant turnover and promotional expenses, was being exploited by the defendant for unfair commercial gain, thereby misleading consumers.
3. Summary Judgment:
Citing Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev (2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764), the court observed that a summary judgment is appropriate when the defendant has no real prospect of defending the case and no compelling reason exists for a trial. Given the defendant's complete inaction, the court concluded that proceeding to trial would serve no purpose.
Decision:
The High Court decreed the suit in favour of Wildcraft India Limited and passed the following orders:
Permanent Injunction: The defendant was restrained from using the marks ‘W95’, ‘HYPA’, ‘HYPASHIELD’, and the Wildcraft logo on any products.
Online Listings: The defendant was directed to remove all infringing listings from e-commerce and social media platforms.
Damages and Costs: The court awarded damages and costs of ₹5,00,000 to the plaintiff, noting the defendant’s wilful infringement and failure to participate in the proceedings.
No comments:
Post a Comment