2005 (1) TMI 630 - HC - Companies Law

Trademark infringement, unfair competition, and damages claimed by the plaintiff - Suit for permanent injunction, damages and delivery up - leading Magazine publisher - alleged that the defendants infringed on its trademark 'TIME' and 'TIME ASIA' by launching a magazine titled 'TIME ASIA SANSKARAN' with a similar design and font style - HELD THAT - A comparison of the plaintiff's 'TIME' Mgazine Exhibit P-2 and the defendants' 'TIME ASIA SANSKARAN' Exhibit P-8 clearly shows that the defendants' Magazine is a slavish imitation of the plaintiff's reputed trade mark/trade name as well as cover design which have an enormous goodwill, reputation and recognition in trade as well as general public. The defendants' effort is to make undue enrichment by creating confusion and deception in the trade as well as consumers and attract advertisements for its Magazine and have higher circulation. This attempt on the part of the defendants has to be condemned and contained. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing on record that the defendants are infringing its trade name and copyrights in over design of its magazine ''TIME ASIA''. Punitive and exemplary damages - In the case in hand itself, it is not only the plaintiff, who has suffered on account of the infringement of its trade mark and Magazine design but a large number of readers of the defendants' Magazine 'TIME ASIA SANSKARAN' also have suffered by purchasing the defendants' Magazines under an impression that the same are from the reputed publishing house of the plaintiff company. This Court has no hesitation in saying that the time has come when the Courts dealing actions for infringement of trade marks, copy rights, patents etc. should not only grant compensatory damages but award punitive damages also with a view to discouraged dishearten law breakers who indulge in violations with impunity out of lust for money so that they realize that in case they are caught, they would be liable not only to reimburse the aggrieved party but would be liable to pay punitive damages also, which may spell financial disaster for them. Thus, the claim of punitive damages is of Rs. 5 lacs only which can be safely awarded. Had it been higher even, this court would not have hesitated in awarding the same. This Court is of the view that the punitive damages should be really punitive and not flee bite and quantum thereof should depend upon the flagrancy of infringement. Accordingly, an ex-prate decree of permanent injunction is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants their officers, servants, agents, representatives and all others acting through them from printing, publishing, issuing and advertising their Magazine under the trade name 'TIME ASIA SANSKARAN' or from using the component 'TIME' in conjunction with any prefix or suffix or from using the trade name 'TIME' or 'TIME ASIA' and also from using the red border distinctive design on the Magazine to be published by them. The plaintiff is entitled to interest pendente lite and future interest on the awarded amount @ 12% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till realization. A decree sheet be prepared.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case include trademark infringement, unfair competition, and damages claimed by the plaintiff.

Trademark Infringement:
The plaintiff, a leading magazine publisher, alleged that the defendants infringed on its trademark 'TIME' and 'TIME ASIA' by launching a magazine titled 'TIME ASIA SANSKARAN' with a similar design and font style. The plaintiff claimed exclusive rights to the trademark and the distinctive red border design associated with its magazines. The defendants' actions were deemed as an attempt to mislead the public and capitalize on the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill. The court found that the defendants' magazine was a slavish imitation of the plaintiff's trademark and cover design, causing confusion among consumers and advertisers. Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark and design.

Damages Claimed:
The plaintiff sought damages for the infringement, including actual damages, loss of sales and advertisement revenue, damage to reputation, and punitive damages. The court, noting the defendants' failure to appear in the proceedings, awarded damages for reputation loss and punitive damages. While the claim for actual damages was not fully substantiated, the court emphasized the need for punitive damages to deter unlawful activities and protect intellectual property rights. The court highlighted the importance of punitive damages in discouraging violators and ensuring accountability for infringements. Ultimately, the court awarded damages for reputation loss and punitive damages, along with costs and interest to the plaintiff.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction against the defendants for trademark infringement. The court also awarded damages for reputation loss and punitive damages to deter future violations. The judgment emphasized the significance of protecting intellectual property rights and deterring unlawful activities through punitive measures. The plaintiff was entitled to costs and interest on the awarded amount, underscoring the court's commitment to upholding trademark rights and fair competition in the market.