M/S LUXOTTICA GROUP S.P.A Vs M/S CRAFTSVIILA HANDICRAFTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS

$~30.

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+	CS(COMM) 48/2016
	M/S LUXOTTICA GROUP S.P.A		..... Plaintiff
	Through: Mr. Akhil	Sibal,	Mr. S.K. Bansal,
	Mr.Rishi Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh
	Suman &	Mr.	Vinay Shukla,
	Advocates.
	versus
	M/S CRAFTSVIILA HANDICRAFTS PRIVATE LIMITED
	AND OTHERS		..... Defendants
	Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

O R D E R % 22.01.2016

I.A. No.1014/2016

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Compliance be made within four weeks.

I.A. No. 1012/2016

The plaintiff seeks leave to file additional documents.

For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, subject

to all just exceptions.

CS(COMM) 48/2016 and I.A. Nos.1011/2016 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC) & 1013/2016 (under Section 80(2) CPC)

Issue summons in the suit and notice in the applications to the

defendants returnable on 05.05.2016.

The case of the plaintiff is that it is engaged in the business of

manufacturing wide range of goods related to eyewear, including but not limited to lenses, sunglasses, optical frames and related goods. It is offering services in connection with the said goods. The plaintiff claims to be the proprietor of the trade mark Ray-Ban. The plaintiff also claims to hold the copyright in the original artistic works contained in the stylised manner in which Ray-Ban is used in its mark.

The Plaintiff claims that defendants No.1 to 7 are engaged in the business of Internet commerce on their websites having the following domain names:

Defendant No.1	www.craftsvilla.com
Defendant No.2	www.stylemyway.com
Defendant No.3	www.99labels.com
Defendant No.4	www.homeandbazar.com
Defendant No.5	www.ealpha.com
Defendant No.6	www.ioffer.com
Defendant No.7	www.mallofluxury.com

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that qua defendant No.7, the plaintiff has not been able to locate the name of the domain name, or the owner in the ‘whois directory’ and, therefore, an imaginary name John Doe has been used.

The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendants No.1 to 7 are engaged in marketing counterfeit products with the trade mark of the plaintiff, namely eyewear and sunglasses. The plaintiff states that the cease and desist notices issued to the defendants have either been ignored, or not replied to. However, the said defendants continue to market and sell counterfeit products of the plaintiff.

Defendants No.8 & 9 are the Department of Telecommunication (DoT) and the Department of Electronics and Information Technology. They have been impleaded as defendants to seek enforcement of the injunction orders that may be passed by this Court. The plaintiff has produced on record and shown to the Court the purchases of the products purchased from defendant No.3 and the expert report in respect of the said product, which states that the product is counterfeit.

Prima-facie, I am satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of an ex-parte ad interim order of injunction. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, there shall be an injunction in terms of prayers (a) (i), (ii) & (iii). The defendants No.8 & 9 are directed to ensure compliance of this order by taking appropriate steps.

Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be made within a week. Dasti.

VIPIN SANGHI, J

JANUARY 22, 2016

B.S. Rohella

M/S L'OREAL Vs M/S SIGMA ENTERPRISES & ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(OS) No.1261/2008

M/S L'OREAL	..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ajayu Amitabh Suman and Mr.
S.K. Bansal, Advs.
versus
M/S SIGMA ENTERPRISES & ANR	..... Defendants
Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

	O R D E R
%	19.09.2016

1. The plaintiff has instituted this suit to restrain the two defendants namely M/s Sigma Enterprises, Thane and My Dollar Store, Mumbai from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, importing , distributing, displaying, advertising or in any other manner using the trademark ‘L’ OREAL’ with or without the trademark ‘PARIS’ and/or ‘ELVIVE’ or any other word/mark which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark/label/copyright in ‘L’OREAL’ ‘PARIS’ and ‘ELVIVE’ in relation to cosmetics, toiletries, hair care products, shampoos and allied products and thereby infringing the trademark of the plaintiff and passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff and for ancillary reliefs.

2.The suit was entertained and vide ex parte ad interim order dated 8th

July, 2008 which continues to be in force, the defendants were restrained from selling and dealing with counterfeit products with the trademark

‘L’OREAL’ with or without the mark ‘PARIS’ and ‘ELVIVE’ as shown at page 2 of list of documents dated 20th June, 2008 of the plaintiff.

CS(OS) No.1261/2008

page 1 of 3

3. The defendant no.1 could not be served by ordinary mode and was ordered to be served by publication; none appeared for the defendant no.1 despite publication and the defendant no.1 was vide order dated 16th

January, 2015 held liable to be proceeded against ex parte.

4.The defendant no.2 in its written statement took a plea that the juristic entity which owns the My Dollar Store was infact M/s. Sankalp Retail Value Stores Pvt. Ltd.; vide order dated 15th April, 2009 the said M/s. Sankalp Retail Value Stores Pvt. Ltd. was substituted in place of defendant no.2 My Dollar Store. However thereafter the defendant no.2 also stopped appearing and vide order dated 20th February, 2015 the plaintiff was directed to lead ex parte evidence.

5.The plaintiff in its ex parte evidence has examined its constituted attorney Ms. Surbhi Bansal and closed its evidence.

6.The counsel for the plaintiff has been heard.

7.The plaintiff, on the basis of its pleadings and ex parte evidence led, has made out a case for grant of permanent injunction in terms of prayer paragraph 32(a) of the plaint. However I do not find the plaintiff to have led any evidence of the damages if any recoverable by the plaintiff from the defendants. Suffice it would be to award actual costs of the suit to the plaintiff.

8.Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants M/s. Sigma Enterprises, A-804, Madhuban Heights, Bhayander, Thane-401106 and M/s Sankalp Retail Value Stores Pvt. Ltd.,401-A, Ramji Premji Apartments, 262 S.V. Road, Borewalle (W), Mumbai- 400092 in terms of prayer paragraph 32(a) of the amended plaint verified on

CS(OS) No.1261/2008

page 2 of 3

13th July, 2009.

9.The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit.

10.Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs.1,00,000/-.Decree sheet be prepared.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

SEPTEMBER 19, 2016

‘pp’..

CS(OS) No.1261/2008

page 3 of 3

M/S KRBL LIMITED Vs M/S ASIAN EXPORTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+	CS(OS) No.2247/2007
	M/S KRBL LIMITED		..... Plaintiff
		Through:	Mr. S.K. Bansal and Mr. Ajay
			Amitabh Suman, Advs.
		versus
	M/S ASIAN EXPORTS		..... Defendant
		Through:	None.
	CORAM:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
		O R D E R
	%	29.08.2016

1.The plaintiff has sued for permanent injunction restraining the

defendant from using the trademark/label ‘INDIA GATE’ with device of ‘INDIA GATE’ or any other identical or deceptively similar word/mark in relation to the business of rice and related products and thereby infringing the copyright of the plaintiff and the label ‘INDIA GATE’ with device of ‘INDIA GATE’ and passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff and for ancillary reliefs.

2.The suit was entertained and vide ex parte ad interim order dated 14th

November, 2007 the defendants restrained from manufacturing, marketing, exporting or in any other manner dealing with their product of rice under the trademark ‘INDIA GATE’ with device of ‘INDIA GATE’ put on its packets. The said order has continued till now.

3. The suit as originally filed, besides against the defendant, was also against M/s. India Gate Pty Ltd., Australia. None appeared for the defendant despite service and the defendant was vide order dated 9thDecember, 2011 proceeded against ex parte. The then defendant no.2 M/s. India Gate Pty

CS(OS) No.2247/2007

Page 1 of 3

Ltd. Australia, though appeared in response to the summons but thereafter stopped appearing and was also proceeded against ex parte on 9thDecember,

2011.

4.The counsel for the plaintiff on 3rd August, 2012 stated that the defendant no.2 M/s. India Gate Pty Ltd. Australia had surrendered the trademark in question in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter filed IA No.17834/2012 for deletion of the defendant no.2 M/s. India Gate Pty Ltd. from the array of defendants; the said application was allowed on 8th April, 2013 and the defendant no.2 M/s. India Gate Pty Ltd. Australia deleted from the array of defendants.

5.The plaintiff in its ex parte evidence has examined its officials Mr. Sunil Kapoor and Mr. Pramod Kumar Mishra and closed its evidence.

6.I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff and perused the pleadings and the ex parte evidence.

7.The plaintiff is found to have made out a case for grant of the relief of permanent injunction as claimed. The witnesses of the plaintiff however have not proved the claim also made in the plaint for damages. Even otherwise, the claim of the plaintiff in the suit, besides for the relief of injunction, is for the relief of delivery of infringing goods and rendition of accounts and in the alternative for damages; the defendant now for the last about nine years already stand restrained from marketing the infringing goods and thus the need for granting the relief of delivery of infringing goods or of rendition of accounts is not felt; axiomatically, the plaintiff would also not be entitled to damages. Suffice it is to state that the plaintiff shall be entitled to costs of the suit.

CS(OS) No.2247/2007

Page 2 of 3

8. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of sub paragraph (a) of the prayer paragraph 32 of the plaint. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit. Counsel’s fee assessed at Rs.50,000/-.

Decree sheet be drawn up.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

AUGUST 29, 2016

‘pp’ ..

CS(OS) No.2247/2007

Page 3 of 3

M/S KAMDHENU ISPAT LIMITED Vs M/S SURYA ISPAT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+	CS(COMM) 2/2016
	M/S KAMDHENU ISPAT LIMITED		..... Plaintiff
	Through	:Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh
		Suman, Mr. Amit Chanchal Jha and
		Md. Sazad, Advs.
	versus
	M/S SURYA ISPAT		..... Defendant
	Through

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

	O R D E R
%	05.01.2016

I.A. No.66/2016 (u/Sec. 151 CPC)

Allowed, subject to just exception.

Application is disposed of.

I.A. No.65/2016 (u/Sec. 151 CPC)

Additional documents be filed within four weeks.

Application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) No. 2/2016

Plaint be registered as a commercial suit. Summons in suit be issued

to the defendant through ordinary process, registered A.D. post and courier

service, returnable for 31st March, 2016 before the Joint Registrar. Process fee etc. be filed within a week.

I.A. No.63/2016 (u/O 39 R1 & 2 r/w Sec. 151 CPC)

Notice for the date fixed.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark ‘KAMDHENU’ for steel bars and related goods since 1996. Even prior thereto, plaintiff had been using the said trade mark right from 1994. Defendant was a licensee of the plaintiff. License has

been terminated on 20th November, 2015 since defendant was not complying with the terms and conditions of the license. It is submitted that defendant continues to use the trade mark ‘KAMDHENU’ of the plaintiff. Defendant has no right to use the trade mark of the plaintiff.

I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel, perused the plaint and the documents annexed therewith and am of the view that plaintiff has succeeded in disclosing a, prima facie, case in its favour, inasmuch as, balance of convenience is also in its favour. In case, defendant is not restrained from using the mark ‘KAMDHENU’, plaintiff will suffer loss and injury. Accordingly, till further orders, defendant is restrained from using

the trade mark ‘KAMDHENU’ as its trade mark in any manner whatsoever or any other deceptively similar mark as that of plaintiff’s mark.

Compliance of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be made within 15 days.

I.A. No. 64/2016 (u/O 26 R 9 CPC)

Plaintiff prays for appointment of a Local Commissioner. Having passed the Injunction order, I find it appropriate to appoint a Local Commissioner to make inventory of the infringing materials and seize the same. Accordingly, Mr. Eashan Ghosh, Advocate (Mobile No. 9650367140) is appointed as Local Commissioner to visit the premises of defendant at M/s. Surya Ispat, 270, Sector – C, Urla Industrial Estate, Raipur, Chattishgarh – 493221 and make inventory of the infringing materials including dies, moulds etc. and seize the same. Thereafter, Local Commissioner shall handover the seized goods/material to the defendant on Superdari with the direction to produce the same in Court without tampering the seal, as and when directed by the Court. If any resistance is put by the defendant or any other person on its behalf, Local Commissioner will be entitled to seek police assistance. In case the premises is found locked, Local Commissioner shall be at liberty to break open the locks. Fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at `1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) besides

other miscellaneous expenses. Local Commissioner shall submit his report

within two weeks from the date of execution of commission.

Application is disposed of in the above terms.

Dasti.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

JANUARY 05, 2016 rb