COMMENT: In this Judgment, the Hon’ble Delhi
High Court has laid down the important proposition.
1. Owing to the fact that Indians could access
the plaintiff no 2”s services through its website as far back as in 1998, I am
of the view that the same is sufficient to constitute prior use. (Para 27).
2. The defendants have chosen not to contest the
present proceedings and, therefore, the only valid inference that can be drawn
is that the defendants adopted the impugned trademark to ride on the plaintiffs‟
goodwill and popularity. (Para 31).
3.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 09.07.2013
Judgment delivered on: 19.08.2013
CS(OS) 157/2010
EASY GROUP IP LICENSING LIMITED AND ANR .... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Mr. Udit Sood and
Prateek Chadha, Advocates
Versus
EASY JET AVIATION SERVICES PVT LTD AND ANR .....
Defendant
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
JUDGMENT
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
1. This suit for grant of permanent injunction
restraining infringement of registered trademark, passing off, delivery up and
damages has been filed by Plaintiffs no 1 and 2, which are companies
incorporated under the laws of England and Wales against defendant no 1, a
company incorporated under the companies act 1956 and defendant no 2, who is
the director of defendant no 1, in respect of the alleged infringement and
passing off of the plaintiff’s registered trademark "easyJet".
2. The plaintiff no 1 is the owner and
plaintiff no 2 is the licensed user of the registered trademark
"easyJet" (hereinafter referred to as the suit trademark). The said
trademark was adopted by plaintiff no 2- which is wholly owned by easyJet, plc,
a company listed on the London Stock Exchange, in the year 1995 in respect
of a low cost carrier airline operated by plaintiff no 2. In the year 2000,
on account of reorganization of business, the suit trademark was assigned by
plaintiff no 2 to plaintiff no 1. Subsequently via Brand License Agreement
dated 05.11.2000, plaintiff no 1 licensed the use of the suit trademark to
plaintiff no 2.
3. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant
no. 1 company having its principal place of business in Mumbai, is trading in
the name and style of “EasyJet Aviation Services Limited‟. It is engaged
in facilitating air charters, air craft management as well as buying and
selling of aircrafts as middlemen. The plaintiffs allege that defendant no
1 is malafidely using the aforesaid trademark "EasyJet" in
relation to services that are identical to those covered by the classification
in which the plaintiffs mark "easyJet" is registered.
4. Summons were issued in the suit vide order
dated 24.02.2010. Though initial appearance was put in by the defendants, no
written statement was filed and after repeated absence, the defendants were
proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16.12.2010.
5. The plaintiff tendered the affidavit by way
of evidence of Sh. Sudhir Thakur, the constituted attorney of the plaintiff no
1 as PW-1, which is Ex. PW-1A. This witness proved various documents on
05.08.2011, which are Ex. PW1/1 to PW1/46. The testimony of the plaintiffs
witness has gone un rebutted and there is no reason not to accept the same.
Some of the exhibited documents, which are considered relevant, shall be
referred to hereinafter.
6. The first submission of learned counsel for
plaintiffs is that the suit trademark is registered in England since 1995, and
in India since 2001onwards under multiple classes, the most important being
class 39 - which registration was granted on 07.12.2004. Class 39 includes, but
is not restricted to, transportation of goods, passenger and travelers by air; airline
and shipping services; airport check in service; chartering of aircraft; rental
and hire of aircraft etc. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiffs are the
prior users of the suit trademark since 1995 - though later in India, as the
defendants adopted the suit trademark in 2003 when the defendant company was
incorporated.
7. Learned counsel for plaintiff relies on
the decision in N.R. Dongre
v. Whirlpool Corporation, AIR 1995 Del 300 and Allergan Inc v.
Milmet Oftho Industries, 1997 2 CAL LT, to advance the submission that prior
use of the trademark anywhere in the world, whose reputation has spilled over
into India, is sufficient to maintain a suit for infringement of trademark and
passing off. It is submitted that the plaintiffs first adopted the mark in
1995 i.e. much before the defendants, and on account of prior use from the year
1995, the plaintiffs are well within their rights to seek a restraint against the
defendants from using the suit trademark.
8. Learned counsel submits that besides the
suit trademark, the plaintiff no 1 has also secured trademark registrations for
other easy group marks such as "easyCar", "easyHotel",
easyInternetcafe" amongst others. It is submitted that in respect of the
suit trademark alone, the plaintiff has registrations in over 40 countries.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits
the defendants infringement of the suit trademark is covered under Section 29
of the Trademarks Act,1999 (hereinafter the „Act‟). Section 29 of the Act reads
as under -
Section 29 - Infringement of registered trade
marks
(1) A registered trade mark is infringed by a
person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of
permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or
deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in
respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render
the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark. (2) A
registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered
proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade,
a mark which because of-
(a) its identity with the registered trade mark
and the similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade
mark; or
(b) its similarity to the registered trade mark
and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such
registered trade mark; or
(c) its identity with the registered trade mark
and the identity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade
mark, is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is
likely to have an association with the registered trade mark.
(3) In any case falling under clause (c) of
sub-section (2), the court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion
on the part of the public.
(4) A registered trade mark is infringed by a
person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of
permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which--
(a) is identical with or similar to the
registered trade mark; and
(b) is used in relation to goods or services
which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and
(c) the registered trade mark has a reputation
in India and the use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or
is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade
mark.
(5) A registered trade mark is infringed by a
person if he uses such registered trade mark, as his trade name or part of his
trade name, or name of his business concern or part of the name, of his
business concern dealing in goods or services in respect of which the trade
mark is registered.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person
uses a registered mark, if, in particular, he--
(a) affixes it to goods or the packaging
thereof;
(b) offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them
on the market, or stocks them for those purposes under the
registered trade mark, or offers or supplies
services under the registered trade mark;
(c) imports or exports goods under the mark; or
(d) uses the registered trade mark on business
papers or in advertising.
(7) A registered trade mark is infringed by a
person who applies such registered trade mark to a material intended to be used
for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper, or for advertising goods
or services, provided such person, when he applied the mark, knew or had reason
to believe that the application of the mark was not duly authorised by the
proprietor or a licensee.
(8) A registered trade mark is infringed by any
advertising of that trade mark if such advertising--
(a) takes unfair advantage of and is contrary
to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; or
(b) is detrimental to its distinctive
character; or
(c) is against the reputation of the trade
mark.
(9) Where the distinctive elements of a
registered trade mark consist of or include words, the trade mark may be
infringed by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual
representation and reference in this section to the use of a mark shall be
construed accordingly.
10. Learned counsel submits that the defendant
is using the impugned trademark in relation to the same services as offered by
the plaintiffs under the suit trademark. It is submitted that the plaintiff‟s
trademark is registered under Class 39 which includes chartering, buying/selling
of aircrafts, which directly cover the activities undertaken by the defendants.
Learned counsel submits that by virtue of Section 29(5), the defendants are in
infringement of the suit trademark as they have adopted the same as part of
their trade name „EasyJet Aviation Services Limited‟. Learned counsel submits
that the trademark "easyJet" is not only used by the plaintiffs to
distinguish their goods and services, but is also used by plaintiff no 2 as
part of its company name, being a mark of repute which is well known in India
for the goods and services provided in relation to the mark, as well as to the
members of the aviation and travel industry.
11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff next
submits that since the year 1995, the trademark of the plaintiffs has come to
be associated with a significant amount of goodwill all over the world. Learned
counsel submits that the defendant no 1, which was incorporated on 31.03.2003,
is in the same line of business as plaintiffs i.e. providing air travel
services and therefore the defendants would have been aware of the plaintiffs
trademark owing to the plaintiff’s popularity not just worldwide, but even in
India. It is submitted that the advertising and publicity expenditure incurred
by the plaintiffs for worldwide promotion was £ 38.1 million in 2009 alone.
12. Learned counsel submits that up till the
year 2009, over 45 million people had travelled on the plaintiff no 2‟s
airline. It is submitted that the website of the plaintiffs eayJet.com went
live in the year 1995 and attracts immense traffic from Indians who travel
abroad. Learned counsel submits that though the airline does not operate in
India, many Indians books tickets on the plaintiff‟s website easyJet.com and
easyJet.in for routes on which the airline operates when Indians travel abroad.
Learned counsel submits that the plaintiff need not carry on actual business in
India or have any physical presence in India to maintain a suit for
infringement as long the plaintiff either has customers in India, or has a
strong reputation in India.
13. To support the aforesaid contention,
reliance is placed on Caesar Park Hotels & Resorts v. Western Hospitality
Services, AIR 1999 Mad 396 and Rainforest Café v. Rainforest & Ors, 2001
(91) DLT 508. In Caesar Park (supra), in action for passing off, the court
observed "Thus, it is manifestly clear that the plaintiff in order to get
the relief of interim injunction restraining the defendant from using its
service mark need not establish that they actually carry on business in this
country. It is enough if they have got customers here. If they have got
customers in India, it necessarily means that the plaintiff has got reputation
in the general sense of the word in this country. The said reputation could be
brought out by advertisement. Therefore, if the plaintiff had acquired
ownership of the service mark in India, as a result of some business done in
India and as a result of large scale advertisement made in foreign periodicals
circulated in India and the periodicals issued in India, he would certainly be
entitled to take passing off action in India." (emphasis supplied)
14. It is further submitted that between the
period May1, 2008 - January 7, 2010 the website of the plaintiff
www.easyJet.com received in excess of 3 lakh visitors from IP addresses in
India. It is submitted that the website quotes prices in INR for the
convenience of Indians and that during the aforesaid period, over 28000
bookings were made for easyJet flights by persons accessing the website from
India. It is submitted that plaintiff no 1 in addition to easyJet.com owns
various other domain names with the prefix easy for its other businesses.
15. Learned counsel submits that in addition to
the above, the suit trademark had gained tremendous popularity in India on
account of being featured in several leading publications such as "The
Times of India", "Hindu" and "Hindustan Times". It is
submitted that in addition to the aforesaid, several Management Research
Centers have studied the plaintiff‟s business model and operations and have
authored reports and case studies on the same. Besides being featured in Indian
newspapers, the plaintiff‟s trademark has also been featured in international
leading magazines such as "Time", "Forbes", and
"Economist" etc. which are also available for circulation in India.
Learned counsel further submits that since 1999, the plaintiffs have been
conferred several awards and accolades over the years such as "one of the
greatest marketing moments of the 20 th Century" by "Marketing
Magazine" in 1999, "Best Low Cost Airlines- Business Traveller
Magazine" in 1999, "Top Consumer Superbrand spot by Brand
Council" in 2003 for the second time, "Best Airline website at
TravelMole Web Awards" in 2006 etc.
16. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits
that due to the aforementioned popularity of the plaintiffs mark since, at
least since the year 2000 in India, the easy group of trademarks have come to
be associated exclusively with the plaintiffs and the adoption by the defendants
of the suit trademark has a strong likelihood of confusing the public, since
the consumer base and services offered by the parties are the same. It is
submitted that the trademark is a "well-known trademark" within the meaning
of Section 2(zg) of the Act. However, at this stage, counsel for plaintiffs
submits that it is not necessary for him to go into the aforesaid submission
regarding the suit trademark‟s status as a "well-known trademark".
17. Learned counsel next submits that suit
trademark is a coined word, coined by the Sir Stelios Haji-laonnou, the
promoter of plaintiff no 2 airline and has no natural connotation. It is
submitted that the trademark has all the trappings of an invented word and,
therefore, is inherently distinctive in as much, as, there is no gap between
the words "easy" and "Jet" and the first letter of the
prefix "easy" is in small case, whereas the first letter of the
suffix is in upper case. It is submitted that the various other trademarks of
the plaintiffs such as easyHotel, easyCar, easyMoney all have the first letter
of the prefix in lower case and no space between the two words. Learned counsel
submits that by virtue of having acquired distinctiveness through use, the suit
trademark qualifies for protection under the Act.
18. Learned counsel for plaintiff submits that
the mark of the defendants "EasyJet" is a blatant copy of the
plaintiff’s mark "easyJet‟ in as much, as, there is no space between the
prefix and suffix and furthermore the first letter of the suffix has been
capitalized to imitate the plaintiff’s mark. It is submitted that the
defendants are passing off their services as those of the plaintiff and the
same will cause a threefold injury to the plaintiffs i.e. 1) Confusion in
public, 2) Adverse affect to plaintiff’s reputation if the defendant indulges
in acts injurious to the reputation of the trademark, and 3) Dilution i.e. the
source of the goodwill and profits of the plaintiffs stand likely to get
diluted on account of the infringement. In support of the aforesaid submission,
learned counsel relies on the decision in B.K Engineering v. U.B.H.T.
Enterprises, AIR 1985 Del 210 and Ellora Industries v. Banaraasi Das, AIR 1980
Del 254.
19. Learned counsel submits that by dishonestly
adopting the mark of the plaintiffs, there is a high likelihood of the members
of the public engaging with the defendants under the misapprehension that they
are dealing with the plaintiffs. Learned counsel further submits that under
Section 27(2) of the Act, an action for passing off can be maintained in a suit
for infringement.
20. Learned counsel for plaintiffs next submits
that the plaintiff’s rights in the easy group of trademarks/service marks have
been protected by various international tribunals such as the domain name
dispute resolution panel- namely WIPO, which is constituted under the aegis of
the United Nations. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid demonstrates
that judicial pronouncements have consistently recognized the plaintiff”s
rights in "easyJet" and the easy family of trademarks.
21. The next submission of learned counsel is
that the defendants have steered clear of the court so that this court cannot
access the books of accounts of the defendants to analyse the profits made by
the defendants on account of passing off its services as those of the
plaintiffs. Learned counsel submits that the plaintiff”s are entitled to damages
on account of the defendant‟s infringement and passing off, of the suit
trademark. On the aspect of quantum of damages to be awarded to the plaintiffs,
reliance is placed on Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava & Anr, 2005
DLT (116) 599, Microsoft Corporation v. Mr. Yogesh Paprt & Anr., 2005 (118)
DLT 580 and Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters, 2005 (125) DLT
504. Learned counsel submits that in Time Incorporated (supra), a decree of Rs.
5 lacs on account of damages to goodwill and reputation and Rs 5 lacs on
account of punitive damages were awarded to the plaintiff, as far back as the
year 2005. It is submitted that the prayer of the plaintiffs in the present
suit for award of damages worth Rs. 20,05,5000 is fair, keeping in mind that
even as far back as eight years ago, courts were inclined to grant damages to
the tune of Rs. 10 lacs.
22. A perusal of the trademark registration
certificate, Exhibit PW1/36, of the plaintiffs‟ reveals that the plaintiff‟s
mark "easyJet" was first registered in the United Kingdom in 1995 in
respect of class several classes including class 39 which covers the services
offered by the plaintiffs and the defendants. Subsequently, the suit trademark
was granted registration in India in various classes from 2001 onwards- in
class 16 vide Exhibit PW 1/44 dated 07.02.2001 and the most important for the
purpose of this suit being class 39, registration whereof was granted on
07.12.2004 vide Exhibit PW1/41. As aforementioned, class 39 includes, but is
not restricted to transportation of goods, passenger and travelers by air;
airline and shipping services; airport check in service; chartering of
aircraft; rental and hire of aircraft etc.
23. The plaintiff‟s website www.easyJet.com,
went live in 1995. The said website has been accessible to Indians who wish to
travel on the plaintiff no 2‟s airline on its operational routes abroad since
1998. A significant aspect of the plaintiff‟s business model is its
elimination of ticketing agents through its website that provides customers the
convenience of booking tickets online as far back as 1998. Exhibit PW1/15 is an
article dated 08.03.2001 in the magazine "Economist" stating that
several airlines, including the plaintiff no 2‟s airline, sell up to 90% of
their tickets online.
24. Exhibit PW 1/29 is a printout from an
Indian online travel portal www.cleartrip.com showing the details, routes,
destinations, flights and company information of the plaintiff’s operations.
The website cleartrip.com also provides a link to the plaintiff’s website. This
evidences the fact that even besides the plaintiff’s own website, Indians can
book tickets on the plaintiff no 2‟s airline via Indian online travel portals
too. Exhibit PW1/10 is a summary of visits from Indian IP addresses to the
plaintiff no 2‟s website. The same shows that between 2008-2010, 28416 bookings
were made by clients accessing the website from India.
25. Furthermore, Exhibit PW1/14 is an article
dated 16.11.2000 in the magazine "The Economist" referring to several
low cost airlines including plaintiff no 2 and its plan to increase the density
of its flights. Exhibit PW 1/19 is a list of top 5 best companies in marketing
according to "FORBES Asia" magazine featuring the plaintiff no 2 at
fifth position. Exhibit PW1/21 is an article dated 23.07.2001 in International
magazine "TIME" discussing the easy group‟s successful marketing
strategy. Similarly exhibits PW1/22, PW1/23 and PW1/24 are write ups in
"TIME" magazine about low cost carriers and the plaintiff no 2
airline dated 26.11.2001, 22.05.2002 and 04.08.2002 respectively. The aforesaid
demonstrates that the plaintiff no 2 has consistently been covered in
international news and magazines as a successful marketing phenomenon. In
Allergan Inc (supra), it was held that internationally established reputation
is enough to entitle the plaintiff to sue in India, even if he has no business
in India.
26. In N.R. Dongre (supra), a Division Bench of
this court held "dissemination of knowledge of a trademark in respect of a
product through advertisement in media amounts to use of the trademark whether
or not the advertisement is coupled with the actual existence of the product in
the market". Besides being featured in international magazines as
mentioned hereinabove, the plaintiff no 2 has also been covered by several
leading Indian publications. Exhibit PW1/25 is an article dated 06.12.2004 from
"The Times of India" stating that the plaintiff no 2 seeks to expand
its operations to India. The aforesaid coverage of the plaintiff in Indian news
and media clearly demonstrates that the reputation of the plaintiff had
successfully spilled over into India.
27. Keeping in view the aforesaid, I am of the
view that the plaintiffs have established prior use of the trademark since 1995
- when it was first registered, and since 1998 when their services became
accessible to Indians via their website. In Caesar Park (supra), it was held
that if the plaintiffs have customers in a country, it can be presumed that
they enjoy a reputation in that country. Owing to the fact that Indians could
access the plaintiff no 2‟s services through its website as far back as in 1998,
I am of the view that the same is sufficient to constitute prior use. By
virtue of Section 28 of the Act, a registered proprietor of the trademark has
the exclusive right to the use of the trademark in relation to the goods and
services in respect of which the trademark is registered and to obtain relief
against infringement of the trademark.
28. The plaintiff has filed with the present
suit a transcript of conversation between a private investigator Mr. Anil Kumar
and the defendant no 2 discussing the services offered by defendant no 2. Since
the affidavit of Mr. Anil Kumar same has not been tendered in evidence, this
court cannot look into the same. However, that aside, PW1 has tendered in
evidence exhibit PW1/46 which is a copy of the business card of the defendant
no 2 which reads as Sunil Nair, Director, EasyJet Aviation Services Pvt Ltd.
which shows that the trade name adopted by the defendants is identical to the
plaintiff’s trademark thereby infringing the plaintiffs mark under Section
29(5) of the Act. Furthermore, Exhibit PW1/45 is a printout from the website
justdial.com showing the defendants as listed for providing helicopter charter
services, aircraft charter services and air ambulance services.
29. The defendants are using the impugned
trademark in respect of identical services covered under class 39 in which the
plaintiffs enjoy their registration. Therefore, the action of the defendants
squarely amounts to infringement under Section 29. Having already established
that the plaintiffs enjoy a considerable amount of reputation, there is no iota
of doubt that the use of the suit trademark by the defendants in respect of
identical services is likely to cause confusion and mislead the public into
believing that the services of the defendant are associated with the plaintiff
no 2‟s airline.
30. In Allergan Inc (supra), the appellant and
respondent were both manufacturing medicinal preparations relating to the eye
under the mark „Ocuflox‟. The Supreme Court in Para 9 observed "In the
present case, the marks are the same. They are in respect of pharmaceutical
products. The mere fact that the Respondents have not been using the mark in
India would be irrelevant if they were first in the world market. The Division
Bench had relied upon material which prima-facie shows that the Respondents
product was advertised before the Appellants entered the field. On the basis of
that material the Division Bench has concluded that the Respondents were first
to adopt the mark. If that be so then no fault can be found with the conclusion
drawn by the Division Bench."
31. It is also pertinent to note that the suit
trademark is a coined word. No explanation has been offered by the defendants
as to why they chose the suit trademark. The defendants have chosen not to
contest the present proceedings and, therefore, the only valid inference that
can be drawn is that the defendants adopted the impugned trademark to ride on
the plaintiffs‟ goodwill and popularity.
32. In Playboy Enterprises (supra), the
plaintiff was the publisher of a widely known magazine under the trademark
„Playboy‟. The defendants were publishing a magazine under the mark „Playway‟.
The defendants were proceeded ex parte and were permanently restrained by the
court from using the mark „Playway‟. The court observed "There is not a
scintilla of doubt that the defendants have adopted the word "PLAY"
with sole object to exploit and trade on its goodwill and widespread reputation.
There is no credible Explanation as to why the word "PLAY" was
chosen." In the present case, not only has the prefix „easy‟ been adopted,
save the capital „E‟, the entire trademark of the plaintiffs has been
appropriated by the defendants as their trade name. In the present case too, no
explanation has been offered by the defendants as to why they adopted the
impugned trademark.
33. In Yahoo.com v. Akash Arora, 1999 II
AD(Delhi)229, it was observed that "Therefore, it is obvious that where
the parties are engaged in common or overlapping fields of activity, the
competition would take place. If the two contesting parties are involved in
the same line or similar line of business, there is grave and immense
possibility for confusion and deception and, Therefore, there is probability of
sufferance of damage."
34. In the present case too, the plaintiff no 2
and the defendants are operating in the same sphere of activity. The services
provided by the plaintiff no 2 and defendants are identical in nature.
Therefore, the likelihood of confusion and deception is strong on account of
the public at large associating the defendants services to be those offered by
the plaintiff no 2. The acts of the defendants in using the impugned trademark
coupled with a lack of plausible explanation offered by the defendants for the
same, leads to the conclusion that the defendants are in fact passing off their
services as those of the plaintiffs in an attempt to cash in on the plaintiff”s
reputation worldwide as well as in India.
35. Furthermore, the plaintiff has been
vigilant about protecting and defending its intellectual property rights. The
plaintiff”s intellectual property rights have also been protected by
international dispute resolution bodies such as WIPO. Exhibit PW1/30 is a WIPO
administrative panel decision dated 18.03.2003 wherein the respondent was
ordered to transfer the domain name easyjets.com to the plaintiff no 1 in the
present suit on the grounds that it was confusingly similar to the trademark in
which the plaintiff no 1 has rights. Exhibit PW1/30 is an order by the Royal
Courts of Justice in London upholding the plaintiff no 1‟s rights in the easy
family of trademarks. Similarly, exhibit PW 1/32 is an opposition filed by the
plaintiff no 1 in respect of a trademark application filed by a corporation in
respect of the mark easy. The decision dated 31.05.2006 upholds the opposition
of the plaintiff no 1 herein.
36. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the
plaintiffs have successfully established prior use of the suit trademark from
the year 1995. Furthermore, the reputation of the plaintiff has spilled over
into India, as is evident from the coverage given to the plaintiff no 2 airline
by Indian publications and the business generated by the plaintiffs from
customers in India. This coupled with the fact that the defendants are using
the plaintiff”s coined trademark in respect of services that are covered under
Class 39, for which the plaintiffs hold a valid and subsisting registration, I
am of the view that the defendants must be permanently restrained from using
the plaintiff’s trademark easyJet or any other deceptively similar mark.
37. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour
of the plaintiffs to the extent of prayers A to C made therein. The plaintiffs
are also entitled to damages to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs in addition to costs of
the suit to be borne by the defendants.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
AUGUST 19, 2013
