Delhi District Court
Puma Se vs Laxmi Traders on 6 September, 2023
DLCT010048922019
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL
COURT)-01,
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED BY: MR. SANJEEV KUMAR AGGARWAL
IN THE MATTER OF:
CS (Comm.) No. 2086/19
PUMA SE
PUMA WAY 1
HERZOGENAURACH, 91074
GERMANY
ALSO AT -
117,A22,
WEA, AJMAL KHAN ROAD.
KAROL BAGH.
NEW DELHI 110005
.......PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LAXMI TRADERS
384, SHOP NO., NEW MARKET,
LAJPAT RAI MARKET,
CHANDNI CHOWK,
DELHI-110006.
......DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 12.04.2019
Date of reserving judgment : 08.06.2023
Date of Judgment : 06.09.2023
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for permanent CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 1 of 22 injunction restraining infringement of trademarks and copyright, passing off, unfair trade competition, damages, delivery up etc. has been instituted by the plaintiff company against the defendant.
2. Briefly stated the case of plaintiff as stands emanated from the plaint are as under:
The Plaintiff company is marketing and selling its products in India through its wholly owned subsidiary Puma Sports India Pvt Ltd, a company organized and existing in India under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The said company is ststed to be carrying on its business through its various stores in Delhi including its stores at 117,A22, WEA, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 & UB-5, Bungalow Road, Kamlanagar, New Delhi-110007.
3. It has been stated that the present suit has been instituted in order to protect the Plaintiff's rights in their well-known and world renowned trademark PUMA and logo that appears on the products manufactured, marketed and sold by the Plaintiff.
4. It has been stated that PUMA is a Germany based Multinational Corporation that is famous for manufacturing one of the most sophisticated sportswear and athletic shoes in the world. The company's soccer shoes are stated to be known for their durability and ground-breaking designs. It has been stated that Puma is the proud sponsor of more than 30 national soccer teams in five different FIFA confederations and the sports giant has also enjoyed endorsement of some famous soccer celebrities CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 2 of 22 like Pelé, Diego Maradona, Johan Cruyff, Enzo Francescoli and Lothar Matthäus. It has been stated that Puma's track suits and running shoes are simply one of the best in the world.
5. It has been further stated that PUMA is one of the world's leading Sports brands designing, developing, selling and marketing footwear, apparel and accessories and for over 65 years, PUMA has established a history of making fast product designs for the fastest athletes on the planet. It has been stated that PUMA offers performance and sport-inspired lifestyle products in categories such as Football, Running, Training and Fitness, Golf, and Motorsports.
6. It has been further stated that PUMA product are available in more than 120 countries worldwide including India and that the company employ more than 10,000 people worldwide. The company is stated to be headquartered in Herzogenaurach/Germany and that the trademark "PUMA" was coined way back in 1948 by Rudolf Dassler and was officially registered on October 1, 1948. Due to its massive popularity since it came into existence in 1948 and on account of continued and extensive use, the PUMA word mark, device mark, trademark is stated to be synonym with every sport today.
7. It has been stated that Plaintiff Company on its own and through its subsidiaries/affiliates world-wide is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing a wide range of products, inter alia, sports shoes, apparel and accessories including but not limited to track suits, T-shirts, shorts, polo shirts, Sports shoes, formal shoes, slippers, Flip-flops, Slippers, Sandals, Bags, ladies purse, bags, watches, wallets and other CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 3 of 22 accessories and equipment of the highest quality. The Plaintiff and their subsidiaries and affiliates the world over are stated to be one of the world leaders in the sporting goods industry with sports brands built on a passion for sports and a sporting lifestyle and providing highest value to consumers. It has also been stated that the Plaintiff is also engaged in the manufacturing and marketing of fashion products under the name "PUMA".
8. The net global sales and gross profit of the plaintiff company for the past few years has also been mentioned and which is stated to be running in millions of Euros.
9. It has been stated that plaintiff's trade mark PUMA and PUMA Logo have created an indelible mark on the sports and fashion industries in India. The plaintiff got its various trademarks, logos and devices registered in a number of countries around the world, including India. Its products under the registered trademarks are stated to have been extensively accepted as quality and standard products. The excellent reputation and goodwill is thus stated to have been acquired by the plaintiff company amongst the user/consumers of its products due to strict quality control.
10. It has been further stated that plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark and its variants in several classes. Set out below are the Plaintiff's trade mark registrations for the PUMA (word mark) in India:
Trade Mark Registratio Filing date Class Renewed n No. Status CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 4 of 22 450142 25/02/1986 18 25/02/2026 559635 03/10/1991 24 03/10/2018 699153 22/02/1996 09 22/02/2026 699154 22/02/1996 03 22/02/2026 700541 04/03/1996 16 04/03/2026 1264294 03/02/2004 41 03/02/2024 412852 08/11/1983 28 08/11/2024 424934 27/07/1984 14 27/07/2025 CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 5 of 22 450143 25/02/1986 25 27/02/2017 532578 03/07/1990 28 03/07/2024 449270 05/02/1986 24 05/02/2017 323053 15/02/1977 18 15/02/2025 323054 15/02/1977 25 15/02/2025 323055 15/02/1977 28 15/02/2025
11. It has been stated that the Plaintiff has been extensively advertising its products under the mark "PUMA" through various printed media including newspapers, magazines and trade journals, leaflets and other promotional literature and the said materials are being extensively distributed throughout the CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 6 of 22 country including Delhi for several years now. It has also been stated that the Plaintiff is selling, marketing; carrying on business and voluntarily working for gain in New Delhi and the products of the Plaintiff are openly available for sale in New Delhi.
12. It has been further stated that defendant is engaged in the business of selling/ trading of watches and the Plaintiff, through its representative in the third week of March, 2019 came across the Defendant's products i.e. watches under the mark POMO along with Plaintiff's leaping cat device i.e., an identical/ deceptively similar logo and mark to Plaintiff's mark PUMA & Puma logo . The Plaintiff's representative obtained the Defendant's product and the photograph of said product categorically reflects that the Defendant has copied the Plaintiff's marks/logos in entirety :
Plaintiff's Product Defendant's product Photograph of Plaintiff's Photograph of Defendants' Product: Product:
CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 7 of 22 Word Mark: Word Mark:
PUMA POMO
Composite Mark: Composite Mark:
The composite mark The composite mark
consists of word consists of word 'POMO'
mark 'PUMA' and and device mark of
device mark of 'leaping cat' (hereinafter
'leaping cat' "the Impugned Mark")
Manner of Manner of
Representation: Representation:
13. It has been further stated that the very adoption of the mark POMO, which has been mischeveously represented (same lettering style) as Plaintiff's mark PUMA, along with leaping cat CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 8 of 22 device which is phonetically, visually and structurally similar to Plaintiff's PUMA & Puma logo in respect of its inferior quality goods i.e. watches by the Defendant amount to infringement of the Plaintiff registered trademark. It has been further stated that the sale of such infringing products under a deceptively similar trade mark and logo, which is identical to Plaintiff's well-known mark PUMA and Puma logo by the Defendant is malafide and cannot be a matter of coincidence and the same is a deliberate and a calculated move of the Defendant aimed at causing misrepresentation and making illegal profits by associating itself with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's PUMA and Puma logo being distinctive, the Defendant had no plausible explanation for using the same.
14. It has been further stated that the adoption of a mark and logos identical to Plaintiff's mark PUMA & Puma logo CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 9 of 22 by Defendant is malafide and cannot be a matter of coincidence and the same is a deliberate and a calculated move of Defendant aimed at causing misrepresentation and making illegal profits by associating itself with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff's mark PUMA & Puma logo being distinctive, Defendant has no plausible explanation for adoption of an identical logo.
15. It has been further stated that defendant has derived the mark/logo/device Pomo logo from the Plaintiff's well known mark PUMA & Puma logo by just copying the said mark, logo/device and that such intended use of a logo by Defendant in respect of identical goods to those of the Plaintiff will amount to dilution of the Plaintiff well-known trade mark and thus poses an imminent threat to the Plaintiff's business and the Plaintiff submits that Defendant adoption and alleged use of the said mark/logo which is identical/ deceptively similar to Plaintiff's PUMA & Puma logo is done with a view to CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 10 of 22 encash on the immense popularity of the mark and logo of the Plaintiff. It has been further stated that the Defendant, by adoption of an identical mark PUMA & Puma logo in respect of identical goods have attempted to derive unfair advantage and cause misrepresentation and the misrepresentation is bound to cause confusion and deception in the minds of the purchasing public which includes men, women and children who identify the mark Puma logo only with the Plaintiff and no one else.
16. It has been further stated that Plaintiff company also sells/ offers their wide range of products through online stores/ e-
commerce websites such as www.snapdeal.com, www.flipkart.com and www.amazon.in and Plaintiff's website www.puma.com.
17. It has been thus stated that as the plaintiff is in no way associated with the defendant so the alleged use of an identical mark and logo as that of the plaintiff's distinctive mark and logo on his goods is completely unjustifiable. The plaintiff has accordingly sought reliefs of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringement of plaintiff's registered trademark, passing off and violation of plaintiff's rights in plaintiff's CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 11 of 22 trademarks / labels; delivery up, damages and costs.
18. Summons of the suit were issued to defendant and the de- fendant contested the suit by filing written statement. Defendant in his written statement has taken preliminary objections that de- fendant is an old man, who is uneducated and has no intention to infringe anybody's trademark and has a very small set up. Thus, defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
19. From the pleadings of the parties and documents, the fol- lowing issues were framed on 18.08.2022 :-
1. Whether the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's trademark PUMA and PUMA LOGO or logo used by defendant POMO / PUMA LOGO is deceptively similar to that of plaintiff ? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as claimed in prayer clause (a) and (b) of plaint ? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed in prayer clause (c) of plaint ? OPP
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed in prayer clause (d) of plaint ? OPP
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for damages for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs ? OPP
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit ?
OPP CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 12 of 22
20. Since, after framing of above issues, defendant stopped ap- pearing, therefore, vide order dated 03.11.2022 defendant's right to cross examine PW1 was closed and defendant was proceeded ex-parte.
21. In order to prove its case plaintiff has only examined one witness i.e. Mr. Rakesh Chhabra who tendered his evidence way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/11.
22. I have heard Ld. Counsel Sh. Shashi P. Ojha for the plain- tiff at length and scrupulously and meticulously gone through the record.
23. My issue wise findings are as under :-
Issues No. 1 : Whether the defendant has infringed the plain- tiff's trademark PUMA and PUMA LOGO or logo used by defendant POMO / PUMA LOGO is deceptively similar to that of plaintiff ? OPP AND Issue No. 2 : Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as claimed in prayer clause (a) and (b) of plaint ? OPP
24. As stated above, in order to prove its case that defendant has infringed trademark of plaintiff company has examined only witness i.e. PW1 Sh. Rakesh Chhabra. The PW1 in his evidence led evidence through affidavit Ex. PW1/A in which he has almost repeated the same contents as stated in the plaint. Therefore, the same are not repeated here for the sake of CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 13 of 22 brevity. He has also relied upon the documents i.e., (1.) Copy of power of attorney dated in my favour as Mark PW1/1 (OSR), (2.)Internet downloads from the plaintiff's website showing various plaintiff stores in Delhi as Ex. PW1/2 (Colly. 2 pages), (3) Affidavit under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and under Order XI Rule 6 (3) of Commercial Courts Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act as Ex. PW1/3, (4) Internet downloading history of PUMA, PUMA logo as Ex. PW1/4 (Colly. 9 pages), (5) Internet downloads from the plaintiff's website as well as third party website showing sale of Puma as Ex. PW1/5 (Colly. 3 pages), (6) Copy of trademark certificates for the mark PUMA, PUMA registered in favour of plaintiff in India as Ex. PW1/6 (OSR) (4 pages), (7) Online extracts showing registration of mark PUMA in class 14 as Ex. PW1/7 (Colly. 2 pages), (8) Worldwide registration obtained for the PUMA trademarks in countries like USA, Australia, Germany as Ex. PW1/8 (Colly. 6 pages), (9) Internet extracts showing PUMA completing 50 years as Ex. PW1/9 (Colly. 2 pages), (10) Photograph of the genuine and counterfeit product as Mark PW1/10 (2 photographs) and (11) Report of local commissioner as Ex. PW1/11.
25. Since defendant stopped appearing, therefore, plaintiff's witness was not cross examined. Hence, the testimony of plaintiff has gone unrebutted, unchallenged and uncontroverted and are substantiated from the record. Further, from the local commissioner's report Ex. PW1/11, it is evident that from the shop of defendant wrist watches having infringed POMO & PUMA LOGO (LEAPING CAT), PUMO and related marks were CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 14 of 22 recovered, the details are under :-
Sr. No. Infringed Goods
1. 339 Pcs of strip watches having impugned trade mark "POMO & PUMA LOGO (LEAPING CAT), PUMO and related marks ;
2. 139 Psc of Metal watches having impugned trade mark "POMO & PUMA LOGO (LEAPING CAT), PUMO and related marks ;
No objection has been filed by the defendant qua the said LC report, therefore, same is deemed to be admitted. Hence, the testimony of PW1 is duly corroborated by the LC report that defendant was dealing with the goods which were having infringed trademark of plaintiff.
26. This Court is of the opinion that on the basis of the testi- mony of PW1 and documents & LC report proved by PW1, the plaintiff has been able to prove that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademarks PUMA and PUMA logo not only in India, but worldwide. On the strength of its presence across sev- eral countries in the world, which is apparent from a perusal of the sales and promotional literature filed by it, the plaintiff has been able to establish that it enjoys trans-border goodwill and reputation. Furthermore, the plaintiff has been able to satisfacto- rily demonstrate that ever since the adoption of the aforesaid trademark, it has been using the same regularly and continuously and has promoted the said mark along with its goods through publications, broadcast, print/visual media, advertisement, etc. Thus, over the past several years, the plaintiff has acquired an en-
CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 15 of 22 viable goodwill and reputation in respect of its goods/services under the aforesaid trademark/trade name not only in India, but worldwide.
27. Taking into consideration the evidence placed on record by the plaintiff and on comparing the impugned trademark used by the defendant with that of the plaintiff, this Court is of the opinion that the trademark used by the defendant POMO & Puma having leaping cat logo to its wrist watches is deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff phonetically and with regard to essential features of plaintiff trade mark and it appears that defen- dant has adopted the said trademark & logo to cause confusion in the mind of public that they are purchasing the plaintiff products. The plaintiff is therefore justified in stating that it has suffered loss of business due to the defendant illegally using its goodwill and reputation in the market and that the defendant has been de- liberately causing confusion/deception in the mind of the pur- chasing public at large with respect to the source of the goods that are in fact originating from the defendant.
28. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that there is every likelihood of the consumers and prospective purchasers carrying an impression in their mind that the goods of the defen- dant originate from the plaintiff or that there is some commercial nexus between them, thus resulting in dilution of the trademark of the plaintiff in their goods and services. The defendant has been encashing the goodwill and reputation established by the plaintiff over the past several years and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff, which cannot be permitted. Therefore, I CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 16 of 22 held that plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as restraining Defendant, their partners or proprietor as the case may be, his servants, agents, stockiest from trading, selling, mar- keting, supplying, offering for sale including online sale or deal- ing in any other way, any goods including watches, and / or any other goods under the impugned mark POMO and Puma logo or any other mark/ logo which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark PUMA and Puma logo , which may amount to infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks as mentioned in the suit. Issues no. 1 & 2 are decided accordingly.
Issue No. 33. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed in prayer clause (c) of plaint ? OPP
29. In view of my findings in issues no. 1 & 2 that defendant has infringed the copyright of the plaintiff's trademark/copyright, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to decree in its favour. Therefore, I direct the defendant to hand over / deliver all the infringing fin- ished/unfinished materials bearing the plaintiff's trademark to plaintiff. Issue no. 3 is decided accordingly.
Issue No. 4 : Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief as claimed in prayer clause (d) of plaint ? OPP
30. In the overall facts and circumstances coupled with my aforesaid discussion, it is also directed that plaintiff's trademark PUMA and PUMA logo or any other deceptively similar logo or CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 17 of 22 trademark of the plaintiff company be also removed from the e- commerce websites/online shopping portals being sold under the name of defendant.
Issues no. 5 : Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for dam- ages for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs ? OPP And Issues no. 6: Whether plaintiff is entitled to costs of the suit ? OPP
31. Since both these issues are interconnected, therefore, I shall decide the same together. Counsel for the plaintiff stresses the fact that the plaintiff is not only entitled to the relief of permanent injunction but also for a decree of damages against the defendant towards the loss of sales, reputation and goodwill of its trademark caused by their illegal activities.
32. In view of my aforesaid findings that defendant has in- fringed the copyright of the plaintiff's trademark/copyright. As noted above, despite filing of WS, the defendant did not choose to appear later on and stay away from the present proceedings so as to thwart any enquiry into their account for determination of damages. As a result, no inquiry into their accounts could be con- ducted, for this court to pass an order of rendition of accounts of profits and delivery up, so as to compensate the plaintiff for the extent of damages suffered by them. But, that alone would not be a deterrent. Merely because the defendant has deliberately elected to stay away from the court proceedings, cannot be a ground to permit him to reap the benefits of evading the suit pro-
CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 18 of 22 ceedings and its outcome. In my view since defendant is not present no purpose would be served by directing defendant to render its account as he will not render the same willfully and it would be impossible for plaintiff to get the same and thus calcu- late the profit earned by defendant by selling infringed goods. Hence, I am not passing decree of rendition of accounts.
33. The court is mindful of the fact that in such a situation where the defendant choose to stay away from the court proceed- ings, he should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of such an evasion. Any view to the contrary would result in a situation where a compliant defendant who appears in court pursuant to summons being issued, participates in the proceedings and sub- mits his account books, etc., for assessment of damages, would end up on a worse footing, vis-à-vis a defendant who chooses to conveniently stay away after being served with the summons in the suit. That was certainly not the intention of the Statute. Section 135 (1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides that relief that may be granted in any suit for infringement of or for passing off includes injunction and at the option of the plain- tiff, either damages or an account of profits. The plaintiff in the present case has opted for claiming damages and has established beyond doubt that it has suffered damages on account of the con- duct of the defendant which are a result of infringement of their trademark and copyright.
34. It is well settled that damages in cases like the present one must be awarded and a defendant, who elects stay away from the court proceedings, should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 19 of 22 of staying away from the said proceedings. In the case of Microsoft Corporation v. Rajendra Pawar & Anr. reported as 2008 (36) PTC 697 (Del.), considering the aspect of punitive damages, it was held as below:-
"22. Perhaps it has now become a trend of sorts, especially in matters pertaining to passing off, for the defending party to evade Court proceedings in a systematic attempt to jettison the relief sought by the Plaintiff. Such flagrancy of the Defendant's conduct is strictly deprecatory, and those who recklessly indulge in such shenanigans must do so at their peril, for it is now an inherited wisdom that evasion of Court proceedings does not de facto tantamount to escape from liability. Judicial Process has its own way of bringing to task such erring parties whilst at the same time ensuring that the aggrieved party who has knocked the doors of the Court in anticipation of justice is afforded with adequate relief, both in law and in equity. It is here that the concept of awarding punitive damages comes into perspective.
23. Punitive damages are a manifestation of equitable relief granted to an aggrieved party, which, owing to its inability to prove actual damages, etc., could not be adequately compensated by the Court.
Theoretically as well as practically, the practice of awarding of punitive damages may be rationalized as preventing under compensation of the aggrieved party, allowing redress for undetectable torts and taking some strain away from the criminal justice system. Where the conduct of the erring party is found to be egregiously invidious and calculated to mint profits for his own self, awarding punitive damages prevents the erring party from CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 20 of 22 taking advantage of its own wrong by escaping prosecution or detection."
(emphasis added)
35. In view of above discussion, I held that plaintiff is entitled to damages for infringing trademark/copyright of plaintiff. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the quantities of infringed goods recovered from defendant which is the main factor for determining the amount of compensation/damages, I held that plaintiff is entitled to damages for infringing trademark/copyright of plaintiff, therefore, I pass a decree for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (₹ one lakh and fifty thousand only) by way of punitive /exemplary damages against the defendant. The damages awarded shall be payable, within a period of three months from the date of passing of the judgment failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of the decree, till realization.
Relief
36. In view of findings of aforesaid issues, I pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining defendant, their partners or proprietor as the case may be, his servants, agents, stockiest from trading, selling, marketing, supplying, offering for sale including online sale or dealing in any other way, any goods including watches, and / or any other goods under the impugned mark POMO and Puma logo or any other mark/ logo which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's mark PUMA and Puma CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 21 of 22 logo , which may amount to infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks.
37. Further, I pass a decree directing the defendant to hand over / deliver all the infringing finished/unfinished materials bearing the plaintiff's trademark to plaintiff.
38. Further, I pass a decree directing the plaintiff's trademark PUMA and PUMA logo or any other deceptively similar logo or trademark of the plaintiff company be also removed from the e- commerce websites/online shopping portals being sold under the name of defendant.
39. Further, I pass a decree for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- ( ₹ one lakh and fifty thousand only) by way of punitive /exemplary damages against the defendant. The damages awarded shall be payable, within a period of three months from the date of passing of the judgment failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of the decree, till realisation. The plaintiff is also entitled to costs of the suit.
40. Suit is accordingly decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs of the suit. Decree sheet be pre- pared after payment of deficit court fee, if any.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Pronounced in open Court on 06.09.2023.
(Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Central, Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi.
CS (Comm.) No.2086/19, PUMA SE Vs. Laxmi Traders Page 22 of 22