$~16.
*
IN THE
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) No.1903/2008, IA
No.11064/2008 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC) and IA No.6015/2009 (under
Order XXXIX Rule
2A CPC).
SHRI MANOHAR SINGH ..... Plaintiff
Through:Mr.
Ajay Amitabh Suman
and Mr. S.K. Bansal, Advs.
versus
ABDUL WARIS AND
ANR. ..... Defendants
Through:None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D
E R
% 19.01.2017
1.
The suit is listed today in terms of the order dated 15th December, 2016, upon the
defendants having failed to lead any evidence and the evidence of the
defendants having been closed.
2.
None
appears for the defendants.
3.
A
perusal of the order sheet shows that though the counsel for the
defendants on
13th May, 2016 cross-examined
the PW-1 but did not appear on 14th September, 2016 to which date the hearing on 13th May, 2016 was adjourned
for the remaining evidence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff on 14th
September, 2016 closed his
evidence and the suit was adjourned to 15th and 16th December, 2016 for evidence of defendants.
4.
On 15th December, 2016 also none
appeared for the defendants and accordingly the evidence of the defendants was
closed as aforesaid and the suit ordered to be listed before this Bench for
today.
5.
The
defendants are proceeded against ex parte.
CS(OS) No.1903/2008 page
1 of 4
6.
I have heard the ex parte
arguments of the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the file.
7.
The plaintiff has instituted this suit for permanent injunction to
restrain infringement of its registered trademark and its copyright and to
restrain the defendants Mr. Abdul Waris and M/s. Sana Mehandi Industries from
thereby passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff.
8.
Vide ex parte order dated 12th September, 2008, while
issuing summons of the suit, the defendants were restrained from selling,
exporting,
displaying,
advertising the marks ‘SANARANG’ and ‘SANARANG’ label with device of a woman
and ‘SANARANG’ label with the device of the foot identical or deceptively
similar to the mark of the plaintiff in relation to Mehandi, Henna and
related/allied products.
9.
The said
order continues in force.
10. Both the defendants filed
their common written statement and to which a replication was filed by the
plaintiff and on the pleadings of the parties, on 30th August, 2010 the following
issues were framed:-
“(a) Whether the plaintiff is the proprietor of the trade mark:
(i) Trade Mark-SATRANG, registration no.
1025981 in Class 3 goods.
(ii)
Trade Mark-SATRANG LABEL WITH DEVICE OF WOMEN, registration no. 1447914
in Class 3 goods.
(iii)
Trade Mark-SATRANG LABEL WITH DEVICE OF FOOT, registration no. 1447915
in Class 3 goods.
(iv)
Trade Mark-SINGH SATRANG LABEL, registration no. 1315190 in Class 3
goods? OPP
CS(OS) No.1903/2008 page
2 of 4
(b)
Whether the defendants has infringed the trade mark of the plaintiff, if
so, to what effect? OPD
(c)
Whether the defendants is passing off the goods manufactured by the
defendants being deceptively similar to the trade mark and design of the
plaintiff by using the word SATRANG AND SATRANG LABLE WITH DEVICE OF FOOT,
SATRANG LABLE WITH DEVICE OF WOMAN AND SINGH SATRANG LABEL, if so, to what
effect? OPD
(d)
If the issue nos. (b) and (c) are decided in affirmative, whether the
plaintiff is entitled to a decree for grant of damages to the tune of
Rs.20,01,000/- as prayed for? OPD
(e)
Whether the defendants have violated the copyright of the plaintiff in
design SATRANG AND SATRANG LABLE WITH DEVICE OF FOOT, SATRANG LABLE WITH DEVICE
OF WOMAN AND SINGH SATRANG LABEL, if so to what effect? OPD
(f)
Relief.”
11.
I have perused the evidence adduced by the plaintiff through PW-1 and
his cross-examination by the counsel for the defendants. I am satisfied that
the plaintiff has proved/established a case for grant of the relief of
permanent injunction as claimed in prayer paragraph 24(a) of the plaint.
12. The counsel for the plaintiff presses for the
relief of damages.
13.
I have perused the reports of the Court Commissioners appointed by this
Court vide order dated 5th
May, 2009 on the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 2A of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), to visit the premises of the defendants.
No objections were filed to the said
reports. The said reports establish wide scale
infringement and passing off
CS(OS) No.1903/2008 page
3 of 4
having been
indulged in by the defendants including after the interim order in this suit.
The application of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC is still pending
consideration.
14. In this view of the matter,
though the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence of its entitlement to
damages, it is deemed appropriate to award damages in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-
to the plaintiff.
15. A decree is accordingly
passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and
severally (i) of permanent injunction in terms of prayer paragraph 24(a) of the
plaint; and, (ii) for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.
16. The plaintiff is also awarded costs of the suit.
17. Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs.50,000/-.
18. Decree sheet be drawn up.
JANUARY
19, 2017
‘pp’..
CS(OS) No.1903/2008 page
4 of 4
