Non denial of admission denial affidavit does amount to be admission of documents
Facts of the Case:
Eureka Forbes Limited, a leading company engaged in manufacturing and selling home appliances, including water purifiers under the well-known trademark AQUAGUARD, discovered that Om Sai Enterprises and its associates were selling counterfeit spare parts and consumables under identical or deceptively similar marks. The defendants’ products bore trademarks such as AQUAGUARD, AQUASFILTER, and ACTIVE COPPER MAXX, misleading consumers and infringing upon the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights. The plaintiff alleged trademark and copyright infringement and sought a permanent injunction along with damages and costs.
Procedural Background:
The suit was filed on August 17, 2023, seeking to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiff’s trademarks. On August 21, 2023, the Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the disputed trademarks. Local Commissioners were appointed, who seized counterfeit products from the defendants' premises on August 28, 2023.
Defendant No. 1 settled the case on November 27, 2024, and the suit was decreed against them. Defendant No. 3 stopped appearing after May 2, 2024, and was proceeded against ex parte. The plaintiff then sought a decree against Defendant No. 3 under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC.
Reasoning of the Court:
The court found that Defendant No. 3 had failed to file a written statement, and as per Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, all averments in the plaint were deemed admitted. The plaintiff had submitted extensive evidence, including trademark registrations, sales invoices, and an investigation report proving that the defendants were selling counterfeit products. The Local Commissioner’s report also revealed that Defendant No. 3 obstructed legal proceedings and attempted to disrupt the evidence collection process.
The court held that the plaintiff had established a clear case of trademark and copyright infringement. The defendants had taken unfair advantage of the plaintiff’s goodwill, deceived consumers, and dishonestly adopted its trademarks and artistic works without any valid explanation.
Decision:
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction against Defendant No. 3, restraining them from selling counterfeit goods using the plaintiff’s trademarks. The court also awarded ₹2,00,000 in damages and costs in favor of the plaintiff. The suit was disposed of accordingly, with directions to draw up a decree.
Case Title: Eureka Forbes Limited Vs. Om Sai Enterprises
Date of Order: March 4, 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 567/2023
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1535
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon’ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
