Case Title: Ramway Foods Limited Vs Rajendra Sharma & Anr.:Date of Order: 7th May, 2025:Case Number: CS(COMM) 182/2023:Court: High Court of Delhi:Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
Facts:
The plaintiff, M/s Ramway Foods Ltd., has been manufacturing and trading food products under the trademark “DOUBLE TAALA” since 2011. The mark is registered under Classes 29, 30, 31, and 44, and features a distinctive label and trade dress. The defendant, Rajendra Sharma, initially sold the plaintiff’s goods as a broker, but later began selling identical goods under deceptively similar marks like “DOUBLE TAALA CHAVI” and later “CHAVI TAALA”, using copied packaging, trade dress, and even elements specific to plaintiff’s batch code such as “RF”.
Upon learning of the infringement, the plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice in October 2022, but the defendant did not respond. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs. The defendants failed to respond meaningfully in court, leading to their ex-parte proceedings.
Legal Issues:
-
Whether the defendants’ use of “DOUBLE TAALA CHAVI” and “CHAVI TAALA” infringed the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyrights?Whether the defendants’ actions amounted to passing off?Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree in the absence of a written statement from the defendants?
Reasoning:
The Court found that the defendants had copied not only the plaintiff’s registered trademark but also various distinctive elements of its packaging and labeling, including batch-specific identifiers. The defendants were aware of the plaintiff's prior rights, having previously sold its goods. Their subsequent imitation was held to be dishonest and mala fide.
Due to their non-participation, the defendants were proceeded ex-parte and the Court deemed all averments of the plaint to be admitted under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
The Court held that the plaintiff had successfully established both infringement and passing off. Further, relying on precedent (Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Imtiaz Ahamed), the Court held that non-participating defendants should not escape consequences and granted damages in addition to injunction.
Decision:
The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the marks/labels deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “DOUBLE TAALA” marks. It also awarded ₹5,00,000 as damages and costs in favour of the plaintiff.
