Facts of the Case:The plaintiff, Ashok Kumar Gupta, proprietor of Jai Durga Plaster Industries, along with Sakarni Plaster (India) Pvt. Ltd., has been engaged in manufacturing and marketing Plaster of Paris (P.O.P.) under the brand name "SAKARNI" since 2004. The plaintiff holds trademark and copyright registrations for the mark "SAKARNI" in Class 19 and has extensively promoted the brand.In February 2023, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant, Arif Khan, was selling identical products under the deceptively similar brand name "SIKARNI". The defendant had applied for trademark registration for "SIKARNI" on a "proposed to be used" basis in March 2022. The plaintiff sent a cease and desist notice on 23rdFebruary 2023, which the defendant contested on 2nd June 2023, denying similarity.The plaintiff filed a suit for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, passing off, dilution, and unfair competition.
Issues before the Court:Whether the defendant’s use of the mark "SIKARNI" constitutes trademark and copyright infringement of the plaintiff's "SAKARNI" mark?
Reasoning of the Court:The defendant did not appear in court despite receiving summons and an ex-parte interim injunction was granted on 26th September 2023, restraining the defendant from using the infringing mark. The court noted that the marks "SAKARNI" and "SIKARNI" were phonetically and visually similar, with only minor alterations in spelling.The plaintiff’s brand "SAKARNI" was a well-established trademark with a significant market presence and goodwill since 2004. The defendant’s act of replacing "A" with "I" and adding a small "No.1" to the mark did not create sufficient distinction, leading to a likelihood of consumer confusion.As per prior use doctrine, the plaintiff was the prior user and registrant of the trademark "SAKARNI", whereas the defendant had only applied for registration in 2022 without prior use. The defendant failed to defend the case, and as per Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC, all allegations in the plaint were deemed admitted.
The court cited Satya Infrastructure Ltd. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2013), stating that ex-parte evidence was not required when the defendant had already failed to contest the suit. The court relied on Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Imtiaz Ahamed (2016 SCC OnLine Del 6717), holding that defendants who evade court proceedings should not be allowed to benefit from their inaction.
Decision of the Court:A decree of permanent injunction was granted against the defendant, restraining him from using the mark "SIKARNI" or any similar mark for wall putty and allied products. The court awarded damages and costs of INR 1,00,000 to the plaintiff due to the defendant’s willful infringement and failure to contest the suit.
Case Title: Ashok Kumar Gupta Vs Arif Khan
Date of Order: 28th February 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 608/2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1414
Court: High Court of Delhi
Hon'ble Judge: Justice Amit Bansal
