1999 (9) TMI 980 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Permanent injunction for trademark infringement.
2. Ownership of trademark and copyright.
3. Damages and recovery of profits.
4. Relief sought by the plaintiff.

Issue 1: Permanent Injunction for Trademark Infringement
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the infringement of their trademark "MAHARAJA" by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed to have been using the trademark since 1978 in manufacturing household articles and electric goods. The defendant was alleged to have adopted a similar mark, causing confusion among the public. The court proceeded ex parte as the defendant did not appear, allowing the plaintiff to present evidence through affidavits. The court found the defendant's actions deliberate and intended to deceive the public, leading to the grant of a permanent injunction.

Issue 2: Ownership of Trademark and Copyright
The plaintiff asserted ownership of the trademark "MAHARAJA" and claimed to have exclusive rights to its use and reproduction. They argued that the trademark had acquired a significant reputation over the years. Additionally, the plaintiff contended that the defendant's use of a similar mark, along with a logo script identical to theirs, was fraudulent and damaging to their reputation and business. The court found the plaintiff to be the rightful owner of the trademark and ruled in their favor based on the evidence presented.

Issue 3: Damages and Recovery of Profits
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's actions had caused damages to their reputation, goodwill, and business. They also claimed that the defendant had made undue profits through these activities. The court, in light of the evidence provided, decreed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000 in lieu of rendition of accounts. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to deliver all infringing material to the plaintiff for destruction. The plaintiff was also awarded costs of the suit amounting to Rs. 15,000.

Issue 4: Relief Sought by the Plaintiff
The relief sought by the plaintiff included the issuance of a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark "MAHARAJA" or any deceptively similar mark. The plaintiff also sought the destruction of all infringing material and recovery of damages. The court granted the injunction, ordered the recovery of a specified sum, and directed the defendant to hand over infringing material for destruction, in addition to awarding costs to the plaintiff.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Delhi High Court granted the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction against trademark infringement, affirmed the plaintiff's ownership of the trademark and copyright, awarded damages and recovery of profits, and provided the relief sought by the plaintiff. The court found in favor of the plaintiff based on the evidence presented, highlighting the deliberate nature of the defendant's actions and the potential confusion caused among the public.