9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. The business is stated to be carried to under the said trademark for the last 14 years and the sale is not only in India but even in abroad. 3. In para 8 of the plaint the sales made for the period of financial years commencing from 1991-92 to 1998-99 have been given showing substantial sales running into crores of rupees. In the last financial year before filing of the suit a sum of ₹ 75 lakhs is stated to have been spent on advertisement alone. 4. Defendant No. 1 is stated to be a distributor and selling agent of defendant No. 2 under the trademark 'DAVAT' carrying on the same business. The style of the writing of the word 'DAVAT' is stated to have been copied from the artistic work of The plaintiff beari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai. Defendant No. 2 claims prior user of trademark 'DAVAT'. 7. The defendants though appeared at the initial stage, subsequently stopped appearing and on 23.02.2004 defendants were proceeded ex parte as it is recorded by the learned Judge that after 28.05.2002 there is no representation on behalf of the defendants 8. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of evidence of Mr. Ashwini Arora, Director, who has proved the board resolution authorising the institution of suit and the same is exhibited P-1. It may be noticed that the plaintiff has been granted leave to lead secondary evidence in respect of certain documents in terms of the order dated 25.07.2005 including copies of the invoices from 1989-9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntitled to the decree of injunction against the defendants in this behalf. 10. In so far as the issue of damages is concerned, learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn my attention to para 15 of the affidavit of evidence where it is stated that the defendants have deliberately stayed away from the proceedings with the object of not producing their books of accounts, so that damages could not be assessed against them. The plaintiff does not have access to the books of accounts of the defendants but the fact that the defendants have sold the goods under the trademark 'DAVAT' is itself sufficient to establish that loss has been caused to the plaintiff. The defendants themselves states that they have been trading under the tradema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... presentatives and all other persons acting on their behalf from using the trademark 'DAVAT' or any other trademark which may be identical or deceptively similar to the trademark 'DAAWAT' of the plaintiff or from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff in their artistic work 'DAAWAT'. The decree of permanent injunction is also passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant jointly/severally from passing off their goods (rice) as that of the plaintiff. 14. The plaintiff is also entitled to decree for recovery of damages in the sum of ₹ 3 lakhs. 15. The plaintiff shall be entitled to costs. 16. The decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. IA Nos. 12456/1999, 1500/2000 and 1501/2000No further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
