9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons 29(3) and 29(5) of the Trade marks Act, 1999. This Court is also of the opinion that the triple identity test is satisfied in the present case inasmuch as the competing trade marks, products and class of purchasers are the same. Thus the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of decree as prayed in the plaint in his favour and against the defendant in terms of para 33(i), (ii), (iii) & (v) of the plaint with costs and damages to the tune of Rs.5.00 lakhs. - CS(OS) 483/2011 & I.A. 3201/2011 - - - Dated:- 30-4-2013 - Manmohan,JJ. For the Plaintiffs : Mr. Sidhant Goel, Advocate with Mr. Mohit Goel, Advocate. For the Defendant : None. JUDGEMENT Manmohan, J (Oral):- 1. Present suit has been filed for permanent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to cause confusion or deception amounting to passing off of the services and/or business of the Defendants for those of the Plaintiffs. (iii) Decree for delivery up of all the infringing stationery, hoardings, boards, printed material, dies, blocks etc., to an authorised representative of the Plaintiffs for destruction. (v) Order for rendition of accounts of profit illegally earned by the Defendant and a decree for the amount so found due or in the alternate, a decree for damages of at least Rs.21,00,000/- may be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant. v) An order for costs in the proceedings. vi) Any further order as this Hon ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. 3. Howev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the combined annual turnover of the plaintiffs for the year 2009-2010 was approximately Rs.32 crores and its promotional and developmental expense since 2006 was Rs.1.5 crores. 10. It is further stated in the plaint that defendant was incorporated as SATYA BUILDES PVT. LTD. on 04th February, 2010, with intent to carry on business inter alia as owners, builders, developers, promoters and colonizers etc. 11. Since according to the plaintiffs, the action of the defendant constituted infringement and passing off, plaintiffs issued a legal notice dated 11th October, 2010 to the defendant. As no reply was received, plaintiffs filed the present suit on 23rd February, 2011. 12. This Court on 28th February, 2011 restrained the defendant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elonging to the group under aegis of which the plaintiffs are carrying on business and of the business of the defendant being that of the plaintiffs. 11. I am therefore of the view that the plaintiffs have made out a case for injuncting the defendant from carrying on business in the name of Staya Infra Estates Pvt. Ltd. and / or from, in the course of its business, use the trademark SATYA of the plaintiffs or any other mark deceptively similar thereto. xxx xxx xxx 14. A decree for permanent injunction is accordingly passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, to be operative after three months herefrom, restraining the defendant from carrying on business in the name of Satya Infra Estates Pvt. Ltd. or in any other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is likely to deceive, but where the similarity between the plaintiff s and the defendant s mark is so close either visually, phonetically or otherwise and the court reaches the conclusion that there is an imitation, no further evidence is required to establish that the plaintiff s rights are violated.......... 29. When once the use by the defendant of the mark which is claimed to infringe the plaintiff s mark is shown to be in the course of trade , the question whether there has been an infringement is to be decided by comparison of the two marks. Where the two marks are identical no further questions arise; for t hen the infringement is made out....... 18. In Jain Electronics Vs. Cobra Cables P. Ltd. Ors., 2011 (45) PTC 52 (Del), t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rrent user is not available to be taken by the Petitioner. 19. Consequently, this Court decrees the suit in accordance with para 28(i) and (ii) of the plaint. 20. Further, as the defendant has deliberately stayed away from the present proceedings despite entering appearance, this Court grant damages of Rs.2,00,000/- to the plaintiffs. It is pertinent to mention that this Court in Malhotra Book Depot Ors. vs. Mata Basanti Devi School of Bio-Sciences Bio-Technology, 2012 (51) PTC 327 (Del.), has held as under:- 36. Counsel for the plaintiff also prays for damages @ Rs.21,00,000/- for loss of reputation and business as also the cost of the present proceedings. It is trite to say that the defendant has deliberately stayed away from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
