Delhi District Court
Sintex Bapl Ltd vs Deepak Kumar on 12 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR SISODIA:
DISTRICT JUDGE, COMMERCIAL-04: CENTRAL:
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
CS (COMM.) 1264/2023
SINTEX-BAPL LTD
(a company registered in India)
having its office at
B-25, First floor, B-Block, Community Center,
Janak Puri, New Delhi
Through its Authorized Representative
Mr. Ram Ratan Singh
Q-168, GF, Dilshad Garden,
Delhi-110095 .... Plaintiff
Vs.
DEEPAK KUMAR
s/o Sh. Amar Nagh,
R/o B-245, Lok Vihar,
Pitampura, New Delhi-110034
Also at:
Deepak Kumar
11386, Ram Nagar Market,
(Opposite Nabi Karim Police Station)
Delhi-110055
Also at:
Deepak Kumar
7238, Amar Nagar,
(Near Nabi Karim Police Station)
Delhi-110055 .... Defendant
Date of filing of the suit : 23.09.2023
Date of reserving judgment : 11.09.2025
Date of judgment : 12.09.2025
CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 1/28
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit under section 134 & 135 of Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 51 & 55 of Copyright Act, 1957 for mandatory and permanent injunction, passing off, infringement of trademark and copyright, delivery up, damages and rendition of accounts etc. against the defendant.
2. It is stated that the Plaintiff was earlier a part of the well-known and reputed Sintex group of companies and had a rich history in plastic products. The predecessor of the Plaintiff company started the business under the name of Sintex Industries Ltd (Plastic Division) in the year 1975 for manufacturing of various plastic containers including water tanks of different sizes and different unique shapes and thus tradename and trademark of "SINTEX" was coined and first time adopted and since 1975 the said trade name is being consistently used till date by the Plaintiff.
3. It is stated that the Plaintiff is one of the India's leading manufacturers of Plastic Products. The Plaintiff Company is engaged in manufacturing, sale and distribution of varied plastic products including Plastic water tanks, Plastic bins, Plastic doors etc. across India. The Plaintiff Company is well known for quality of its products and has developed Plastic Products for customer and pioneered the application of technology. The Plaintiff Company works closely with current need of market and trades.
4. It is stated that by acquiring tremendous reputation and goodwill by name "SINTEX," the Plaintiff Company is one of the India's largest CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 2/28 brands, extensively and consistently using the trademark "SINTEX" in the course of business, in India since 1975. The Plaintiff Company carries out its business in India through its Dealers and advertises in India through print, digital advertisement, social media, brochures, and packaging of their goods. Substantial resources have also been expended in enhancing and safeguarding the quality of the supreme products manufactured by the Plaintiff bearing the mark, "
","Sintex".
5. The Plaintiff has spent huge advertisement expenses and has sold their products in various countries including breadth and length of the country and has appointed a number of dealers and retailers throughout the country and appointed its agents and dealers in various other countries and has acquired huge sales of its products under the trademark and tradename of "SINTEX". The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of various trademarks in India, including among others the marks set out in the table below (hereinafter referred to as the "Sintex marks") DETAILS OF TRADE MARK OF THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY S. Trade Appln. Date Trade Mark Class No. Mark. No. 1. 440638 24/07/1985 20 Renwed on 18/08/2016 2. 440638 18/08/2016 20 CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 3/28 3. 2791003 13/08/2014 20 4. 3082272 20/10/2015 20 5. 3806398 15/04/2018 SINTEX 20 6. 2791005 13/08/2014 20 7. 4849569 04/02/2021 SINTEX 20 8. 5028818 02/07/2021 20
6. It is stated that the Plaintiff Company has thus the exclusive right to use said trademarks with respect to its products and no one else is entitled to use the "SINTEX" marks and/or any mark identical and /or confusingly or deceptively, visually, and phonetically similar to the "SINTEX" marks without a license or assignment by the Plaintiff Company. The Plaintiff and its predecessor-in-interest have diligently protected its intellectual property rights in the "SINTEX" marks by initiating legal proceedings against any infringing mark(s).
7. The "SINTEX" marks enjoy huge goodwill and reputation in business community and public in general in India and across the world. On account of good quality and standards of manufacturing the goods CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 4/28 under the "SINTEX" marks, the Plaintiff Company have earned huge recognition in the market.
8. It is stated that the Plaintiff's products bearing trademark "SINTEX" are very popular amongst consuming public on account of their superior quality and extensive efforts undertaken by the Plaintiff company to promote the same. That the use of trademark "SINTEX" are prominent and essential feature of the Plaintiff's products and are recognized widely by the consumers. The trademark "SINTEX" forms an integral part of Plaintiff's products. Immense reputation and valuable goodwill have come to be acquired in the said trademarks and their artistic depictions and such trademark 'SINTEX' have since acquired the status of well-known marks.
9. It is stated that on account of the common law and statutory rights also, the Plaintiff is rightfully entitled to use of the trademark 'SINTEX' independently or in combined manner to the exclusion of others except under a license /express permission from the Plaintiff Company.
10. It has come to the Plaintiff's knowledge that the Defendant is engaged in manufacturing/assembling/selling/distributing products under the trademark 'SINTEX,' and other variance of 'SINTEX.' That such use of falsified marks by Defendant which are visually, structurally identical and/or deceptively, visually, phonetically, and confusingly similar to Plaintiff's well-known registered trademark 'Sintex' is unauthorised and illegal. The calculated identity and similarities in the Defendant's impugned mark shows the extreme dishonest conduct on the part of the Defendant who is making all attempts to ride piggy back on the Plaintiffs' and their predecessor's reputation built since 1975.
CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 5/2811. It is stated that Defendant is involved in the business of manufacturing, printing, assembling, stocking, distributing, and selling of infringing products bearing the falsified 'Sintex,' and other variance of "SINTEX" marks from its premises. During investigation carried around the 2ndweek of August, 2023, it came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff that Defendant is engaged in manufacturing/printing/assembling/selling/ Marketing/distributing products under the falsified trade mark 'Sintex,' and other variance of "SINTEX." A side-by-side comparison of the Defendant's mark/ name with that of the Plaintiffs' trade mark makes the mala fide intentions of the Defendant irrefutably and glaringly evident. The use of falsified marks by Defendant which are visually, phonetically, structurally identical and/or deceptively and confusingly similar to Plaintiff's well-known registered trademark 'SINTEX' is unauthorised and illegal. Since the Defendant has made clear its malafide intention of appropriating the Plaintiffs' trade mark 'SINTEX' and to ride upon the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff's built over the years, the Plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit to protect its statutory and common law rights in the trademark 'SINTEX.'
12. It is stated that the Defendant continues to sell and store huge numbers of infringing goods bearing trademarks identical and/or deceptively and confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's registered trade mark 'SINTEX.' The infringing products manufactured, assembled, printed, sold and stored by the Defendant are readily available in Delhi. It is stated that during investigation, the Plaintiff had found that the products with mark "SINTEX" is being sold on online platform, 'indiamart.com' and on further investigation, the Plaintiff had reached the address of the Defendant on 12.08.2023 and found the product. On CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 6/28 enquiry by the Plaintiff's Representative, the person present on the spot agreed to provide the products with mark "SINTEX" but in bulk and not in retail. As per the person found on spot, they only deal in bulk and not in retails and supply the products all over India. Photographs of the infringing goods of the Defendant bearing trademarks identical and/or deceptively and confusingly similar to the "SINTEX" marks of the Plaintiff are as follows:
Product of plaintiff Product of
defendant
13. It is stated that the impugned mark of the Defendant bears identity as well as a very high degree of similarity with the Plaintiff's registered and prior used mark 'SINTEX.' It is apparent that the mark 'SINTEX' has been slavishly copied by the Defendant, with the clear intent to show itself as being related to, associated with or being an extension of the Plaintiff's Sintex group of companies.
14. It is stated that the adoption and use of the impugned mark/ name 'SINTEX' by the Defendant cannot be a mere coincidence but has been deliberately done to ride on the enormous reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiffs with a view to make monetary gain out of the Plaintiffs' brand. Apart from the phonetic similarity, the visual similarity of the Defendant's impugned mark and name with the Plaintiff's registered and prior used mark leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Defendant has adopted the impugned mark/ name with a mala fide intention.
CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 7/28DIFFERENCES DRAWN BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL AND THE INFRINGING PRODUCT OF DEFENDANT Original Product Infringing Product (Plaintiff's Product) (Defendant Product)
1. The label fixed on the The label "Sintex" being used products contains "Sintex" on the product are either with logo which is company plastic wrappers or locally printed, not easily erasable. printed which can easily be erased.
2. The original products have The specification is missing on all specification in compliance the infringing product.
of Legal Metrology Act, 2009, Packaged Commodity Act, 2017, Rules formulated thereunder and the like legal provisions. a. Product b Size c. MRP
15. It is stated that on a close scrutiny of Defendant's products, it is observed that the quality of the product of Defendant is of a poor/bad quality. The infringing products being sold by the Defendant is not well finished as compared to the high end finished products of Plaintiff. Furthermore, the products manufactured, assembled, stored, distributed, and sold by the Defendant do not carry care label, security label and MRP label. The adoption of the impugned trademark "Sintex" or other variance of "Sintex" being deceptively similar to Plaintiff's well-known CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 8/28 trademark "SINTEX" amounts to violation of Plaintiff's prior rights as aforesaid.
16. It is stated that the Plaintiff has been suffering huge losses and damage by the acts of the Defendant. The use of falsified trademarks by the Defendant which are identical and/or confusingly, phonetically and deceptively similar to the registered trademarks of the Plaintiff, the Defendant is passing off its products as that of Plaintiff's products and are reaping unfair advantage without any due cause and such an act is highly detrimental to the distinctive character, goodwill and repute of the trademarks of Plaintiff and constitutes infringement within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act 1999 that the Plaintiff are entitled to the protection under the law. It is stated that the Plastic products being manufactured, stored and sold by the Defendant bearing falsified "Sintex" marks are not the genuine products of the Plaintiff, are counterfeit and of a very inferior quality. The Defendant by falsifying the "SINTEX" marks of Plaintiff Company and by passing off their products are deceiving the unwary purchasing public and also causing a huge monetary loss to the Plaintiff and also diluting the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff' trademarks. The overall impact of the action of the Defendant and in fact the totality of the circumstances show that the Defendant has acted with the sole intention of dishonestly riding upon the goodwill of the Plaintiff and to cause deception and confusion in mind of the innocent and incautious purchasing public, otherwise there is no reason for the Defendant to adopt same / similar trade mark and logos as that of the Plaintiff. The defendant by infringing the trademarks and logos of the Plaintiff and by passing off its products are making illegal gains to themselves and causing wrongful loss to the Plaintiff and also the loss of business opportunity to the Plaintiff. These illegal activities of the CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 9/28 defendant are not only causing grave and irreparable loss and injury to the Plaintiff but are also causing grave prejudice to the public interest. Finding no other alternative, plaintiff has filed the present suit.
17. Plaintiff has prayed for a decree of mandatory and permanent injunction, passing off, infringement of trademark and copyright, delivery up, damages and rendition of accounts etc.
18. Summons of the suit was served upon the defendant. Defendant has contested the suit by filing the WS. Defendant has raised preliminary objections that the defendant never sold the goods in a wrongful and deceitful manner. The plaintiff has failed to place on record the documents to show that the defendant is engaged in manufacturing/selling of any infringed products. No cause of action has ever arisen to file the present suit, hence the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed u/O 7 Rule 11 CPC. The suit is wrong and misconceived, based on vague and baseless allegations, the sole purpose of the plaintiff is to damage the reputation of the defendant and to harass the defendant to extort money from the defendant. The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts and as such the suit liable to be dismissed. The defendant is engaged in the business of trading/selling of products like dustbins, trolleys etc. of various brands such as Neel Kamal, Aristo, Sintex etc. and had been purchasing the products from respective companies. It is further stated that earlier defendant was doing business along with his brother in partnership in the name and style of M/s. Sunrise Trolley Manufacturers. The said firm was dissolved in the year 2021 and thereafter, defendant started doing the business in the name and style of M/s. Mahalaxmi Inds at the same address as a proprietor of the said firm. It is stated that after the CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 10/28 dissolution of the partnership firm, some old stock of the said firm was lying at the shop/godown of the defendant which included the goods purchased from the plaintiff company. It was stated that some of the goods which are lying in the shop of the defendant were too old and in broken condition which cannot be sold. After the dissolution of the partnership firm, defendant had reduced the business with the plaintiff company. It was stated that the goods seized by the local commissioner were being purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff in the name of previous firm and are genuine products.
On merits, the contents of the plaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the suit with cost.
19. Plaintiff has filed the rejoinder to the WS of defendant and reiterated the facts mentioned in the plaint.
20. Vide order dated 12.11.2024, application u/O 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff was allowed and defendant was restrained from using the mark SINTEX or/and any trademark/label deceptively or confusingly similar to the registered trademark SINTEX till the disposal of the suit.
21. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 15.01.2025: -
1. Whether the suit is without cause of action as defendant is not infringing the trademark of the plaintiff and is not selling the counterfeit products? (OPD)
2. Whether the infringed goods seized by the Ld. Local Commissioner were purchased by CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 11/28 the defendant from the plaintiff company itself? (OPD)
3. Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorized persons on behalf of the plaintiff? (OPP)
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for? (OPP)
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of delivery up and rendition of accounts? (OPP)
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages as prayed for? (OPP)
7. Relief.
Plaintiff's Evidence
22. The plaintiff examined its AR Sh. Ram Ratan Singh as PW-1, who has tendered his affidavit as Ex PW1/A and exhibited/marked the following documents: -
Sr. Documents Exhibits No.
1. Copy of certificate of Incorporation of Plaintiff Mark A company
2. Copy of letter of authority Mark M
3. Copy of Board Resolution in favour of Mr. Nikhil Mark B Shah
4. Copy of Trade mark certificate issued by Registrar Mark C to of Trademarks Mark J
5. Documents in support of Year Wise Sales of the Mark K products of the plaintiff CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 12/28
6. Copy of news clips Mark L (colly)
7. Screenshot of the defendant's presence on various e- Ex.PW-1/1 commerce platform as well as on Indiamart.com (Objected to as to mode of proof and want of certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act)
8. Photographs of original products of the plaintiff Ex. PW-
1/2(Objected to as to mode of proof u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act)
9. Screenshots of the social media platforms Ex.PW-1/3 www.facebook.com, www.instagram.com, (Objected to www.youtube.com, www.linkedin.com as to mode of proofu/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act) 10 Report of the Local Commissioner Ex. PW-1/4 .
PW-1 was cross examined by counsel for the defendant. Thereafter, PE was closed.
23. The defendant examined himself as DW-1, who has tendered his affidavit as Ex DW1/A and exhibited the following documents: -
Sr. No. Documents Exhibits
1. Copy of partnership deed of the firm M/s Sunrise Ex. DW-1/1 Trolley Manufacturers (OSR) CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 13/28
2. Invoices no. 17294703, 17002815, 18000534, Ex. DW-1/2 18000535, 17294735, 17003802 issued by the (colly) (OSR) plaintiff company in the name of M/s Sunrise Trolley Manufacturers
3. Dealer Certificate dated 31.03.2018 in the name Ex. DW-1/3 of M/s Sunrise Trolley Manufacturers (OSR)
4. Builty/consignment note of Jaipur Golden Ex. PW-1/4 Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. (OSR)
5. Invoice no. 076 issued by G.R. Enterprises which Already is exhibited as Ex. DW-1/5 exhibited as Ex. DW-4/A
6. Purchase order from dated 28.01.2016 Ex. DW-1/6 (OSR)
7. Tax Invoice dated 15.03.2018 Ex. DW-1/7 (OSR)
24. Defendant also examined his brother Sh. Manoj Kumar DW-2, who tendered his affidavit as Ex DW2/A and relied upon the documents already exhibited as Ex. DW-1/1 to DW-1/7.
25. Defendant further examined Sh. Kumar Satyendra son of Sh. Gopal Porasad, GST Inspector, Ward no.6, Department of Trade & Taxes, Govt.of NCT of Delhi, Vyapar Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi. DW-3 has brought GSTR-2A pertaining to Sunrise Trolly Manufacturers for the period 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and also record pertaining to invoice issued by M/s G.R. Enterprises in favour of M/s Sunrise Trolley Manufacturers. The record has been downloaded from the GST portal by Sh. Manjeet Singh, GSTO Ward-6. The GSTR-2A were collectively exhibited as Ex. DW-3/A (colly) and the covering letter bearing the signature of Sh. Manjeet Singh, GSTO, Ward 6 was exhibited as Ex. DW-3/B.
26. Defendant also examined Sh. Rakesh Kumar Mittal s/o Sh. Ganga Ram Mittal, Authorized Signatory, G.R. Enterprises, Allahabad Bank Wali CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 14/28 Gali, Mangolpur Kalan, Delhi-110085. DW-4 has brought the summoned record Bill Book pertaining to invoice no. 76 dated 25.10.2017 issued by GR Enterprises in favour of M/s Sunrise Trolley Manufacturers. The copy of the same was already available on record and was exhibited as Ex. DW-4/A. All the witnesses were cross examined by the counsel for the plaintiff. Thereafter DE was closed.
27. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff Sh. Kuldeep Singh and Sh. Deepak Arora Ld. Counsel for the defendant and have gone through the record carefully.
Issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue no.3:
Whether the suit has been filed by a duly authorized persons on behalf of the plaintiff? (OPP)
28. This issue has been taken up first as it will decide the maintainability of the suit itself. The onus of proving this issue has been cast on the plaintiff.
29. Perusal of the plaint would show that the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff through its authorized representative Mr. Ram Ratan Singh. The plaintiff has filed letter of authority dated 11.08.2023 executed by Mr. Nikhil Shah, Vice President (Legal) of the plaintiff company in favour of Mr. Ram Ratan Singh and Board Resolution dated 29.03.2023 passed by the plaintiff company in favour of Mr. Nikhil Shah.
CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 15/2830. In support of its case, plaintiff has examined only one witness i.e. its AR Sh. Ram Ratan Singh, who has marked the photocopies of the letter of authority executed by Sh. Nikhil Shah as Mark M and copy of the Board Resolution in favour of Sh. Nikhil Shah as Mark B.
31. Counsel for the defendant has vehemently argued that plaintiff has failed to prove the authority letter Mark 'M' as well as copy of Board Resolution Mark 'B' by producing the original documents and examining the competent witnesses to prove these documents. He argued that plaintiff belatedly filed an application u/O 11 Rule 1(5) read with order 11 Rule 1(12) CPC to place on record the original letter of authority dated 11.08.2023 which was dismissed by the court vide order dated 06.08.2025. He argued that as per his knowledge, no appeal or revision has been filed against the said order by the plaintiff and the said order has attained finality. Counsel for the defendant argued that plaintiff has miserably failed to prove the letter of authority Mark 'M' and extract from the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Directors held on March 29, 2023. Therefore, in the absence of proof of authority letter Mark 'M' and the extract of Minutes of Meeting dated 29.05.2023, the suit filed by Sh. Ram Ratan Singh is not filed by a duly authorized person.
32. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff argued that the suit has been filed a duly authorized person and even though the originals of authority letter Mark 'M' and copy of Board Resolution Mark 'B' could not be placed on record in time, perusal of report of local commissioner would show that the officials of the plaintiff company namely Mr. Ashraf Ali, GM Anti counterfeit was present with the local commissioner during the CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 16/28 proceedings conducted by the Ld. local commissioner and his attendance was duly marked by Ld. Local Commissioner on Attendance Sheet, Annexure-C and Annexure-D Ex.PW-1/4 which shows that the authority given to Mr. Ram Ratan Singh was a valid authority.
33. It is a settled principle of law that the case of the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs. Plaintiff is required to prove each and every ingredient necessary for the success of its case. The plaintiff was therefore, under an obligation to prove on record the letter of authority Mark 'M' and copy of Board Resolution in favour of Mr. Nikhil Shah by producing the originals or certified copies thereof. However, neither the plaintiff has produced the original documents nor has produced the certified copies thereof. The plaintiff cannot be said to have discharged this onus by merely placing on record photocopies of the documents. It is also pertinent to note here that PW-1 Ram Ratan Singh is not an employee of the plaintiff company. In his cross- examination, he has admitted that he has not worked in the plaintiff company at any point of time nor he has visited the factory of the plaintiff company. He has also deposed that Mr. Nikhil Shah, Representative of the plaintiff had informed him about the presence of advertisements of the defendant on social networking sites.
34. The plaintiff could have easily proved the copy of letter of authority Mark 'M' by examining Mr. Nikhil Shah, who was an employee of the plaintiff company and the Board Resolution dated 29.03.2023 could have been easily proved by the plaintiff by examining the Company Secretary along with the original Minute Book of the plaintiff company containing the Resolution dated 29.03.2023. However, the plaintiff has failed to produce and examine the best witnesses CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 17/28 available with it and therefore, an adverse inference must be drawn against the plaintiff for withholding the best evidence.
35. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus cast on it and has failed to prove that the suit has been filed by duly authorized person on behalf of the plaintiff company. The issue is accordingly decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Issue nos. 1 and 2
1.Whether the suit is without cause of action as defendant is not infringing the trademark of the plaintiff and is not selling the counterfeit products? (OPD)
2. Whether the infringed goods seized by the Ld. Local Commissioner were purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff company itself? (OPD)
36. These issues are taken up together as they can be disposed of by common discussion. The onus of proving these issues has been cast on the defendant.
37. Defendant in his WS has taken a defence that defendant has never infringed the trademark of the plaintiff. It was stated that defendant is selling the products of different companies like Neelkamal, Aristo, Sintex etc. and had been purchasing the said products from the respective companies. Earlier defendant was doing business with his brother in partnership in the name and style of M/s. Sunrise Trolley CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 18/28 Manufacturers and the said firm was dissolved in 2021 and old stock of the firm was lying at the shop/godown of the defendant which included goods purchased from the plaintiff company. It was further stated that the goods lying in the shop/godown were old and in broken condition which cannot be sold. It was also stated that the aforesaid partnership firm of the defendant and his brother was a distributor of the plaintiff company.
38. In order to prove its case, defendant has examined himself and has proved the partnership deed of the firm M/s. Sunrise Trolley Manufacturer as Ex. DW-1/1. Six invoices in the name of the partnership firm were proved as Ex. DW-1/2 and the dealer certificate in the name of partnership firm was proved as Ex. DW-1/3. Defendant also proved the invoice issued by M/s. G.R. Enterprises dated 25.10.2017 as Ex. DW- 4/A and the purchase order dated 28.01.2016 as Ex. DW-1/6. Counsel for the defendant has argued that in the report of the local commissioner, old and unused articles were recovered. It was argued that cross-examination of PW-1 would show that during the visit of the local commissioner, no manufacturing unit was found on the premises of the defendant nor any device for putting the label/trademark on the product was found. There was no sticker of 'sintex' found at the premises of the defendant which could be used by the defendant on the counterfeit products. Counsel for the defendant has argued that the testimony of PW-1 establishes that defendant was not indulging in manufacturing of any counterfeit products or infringing the trademark of the plaintiff and he was also not found selling any counterfeit products. It was argued that the infringed goods seized by the Ld. Local Commissioner were purchased by the defendant from the plaintiff company against the invoices Ex. DW-1/2 (colly). Defendant further proved the purchase of articles from M/s. G.R. Enterprises vide invoice Ex. DW-4/A. He argued that defendant has CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 19/28 examined DW-4 Rakesh Kumar Mittal, who has proved the invoice no.76 Ex. DW-4/A by producing the bill book. He argued that the cross- examination of this witness would show that G.R. Enterprises was authorized dealer of plaintiff company in the year 2017 and defendant had purchased 10 pieces of the dustbins of blue color from M/s. G.R. Enterprises. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to establish that defendant was infringing the trademark of the plaintiff.
39. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff has argued that there are material contradictions in the testimony of DW-1 Deepak Kumar and his brother Manoj Kumar, who appeared as DW-2 which make their testimony unreliable. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff pointed out that DW-1 in his cross- examination claimed that the partnership firm was closed in the year 2021 and partnership firm was dissolved but admitted that no formal dissolution had taken place, whereas DW-2 Manoj Kumar in his cross-examination deposed that partnership firm was mutually dissolved in July 2020. DW-1 deposed that the stock of the partnership firm prior to 2021 was not divided between him and his brother as it was old/damaged and it remained with him as he was dealing in plastic dustbin, whereas DW-2 in his cross-examination deposed that some of the items were received by him and some of the items were received by defendant as mutual settlement. DW-2 further deposed that his firm is not dealing with the plaintiff company, whereas DW-1 deposed that he is having business relations with his brother and he is purchasing iron trolleys from DW-2 since 2021 in finished form in parts which are assembled by him. Counsel for the plaintiff has further argued that this admission directly supports the case of the plaintiff that defendant is sourcing unbranded goods, assembling them and then using brand stickers deceptively to pass off these goods as originated from the CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 20/28 plaintiff and this act on the part of the defendant amounts to counterfeiting and misrepresentation. He further argued that after the expiry of distributorship of the partnership firm of defendant and his brother in 2018, defendant does not have the authority to sell, manufacture or deal in the plaintiff's product bearing their trademark and has no authority to represent himself as manufacturer either on-line or offline. Counsel for the plaintiff has also argued that the claim of the defendant that all the goods seized were old stock, is also contradicted by his cross-examination, wherein he has admitted that some newly purchased products were not seized by the Ld. Local Commissioner. This admission establishes that defendant was infringing the trademark of the plaintiff even in recent past. DW-1 has also admitted that his employee Preeti was actively handling on-line customer quarries, including the quarries related to the plaintiff's product which confirms that the defendant is unauthorizedly dealing in the products of the plaintiff and is thus infringing the trademark of the plaintiff.
40. A careful perusal of report of Ld. Local Commissioner would show that plaintiff was found in possession of large quantities of the products of the plaintiff which were seized by the Ld. Local Commissioner as per Annexure 1 and Annexure 2, besides the original products of the plaintiff which were not seized by the Ld. Local Commissioner. Admittedly, the partnership firm of the defendant was distributor of the plaintiff company till 31.03.2018 which is also evident from the distributor certificate Ex. DW-1/3. Although in the WS, defendant claimed that he was in possession of some old and broken goods of the plaintiff company which were received by him after dissolution of the partnership firm which could not be sold, but the report of the Local Commissioner and cross-examination of DW-1 clearly CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 21/28 establishes that defendant was also found in possession of stock recently purchased by him which also contained goods in packed condition and which were not even unpacked. The defendant claimed that he had purchased these goods from the plaintiff company but defendant has not placed on record any invoice in support of this averment. Defendant not being the distributor or authorized person to sell the products of the plaintiff company could not have carried out business of the products of the company without the authorization of the plaintiff company. There is no document on record to show that plaintiff company ever authorized the defendant company to stock or sell its products. The fact that defendant was selling the products of the plaintiff company unauthorizedly is also evident from the testimony of DW-1, wherein he has admitted that one of his staff members at premises no.7238 Aram Bagh, Navi Karim, Delhi, use to check the on-line orders of the customers and deal with them on telephone. He also admitted that the requirement of Sintex brand was also checked by the said staff member namely Preeti and she used to follow up with the customer.
41. Thus, in the absence of any invoice being produced by the defendant for the newly purchased products bearing the trademark of the plaintiff, the defendant has failed to establish that he had purchased these products from the plaintiff company or its duly authorized agents. The conduct of the defendant in selling the products of the plaintiff company without its permission also establishes that defendant was infringing the trademark of the plaintiff.
42. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that defendant has failed to discharge the onus cast on him. The issues are accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 22/28 defendant.
Issue no.4 hether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for? (OPP)
43. The onus of proving this issue has been cast upon the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that defendant has admitted in his cross examination that his partnership firm M/s. Sunrise Trolleys Manufacturer was the distributor of the Sintex products of the plaintiff company and the certificate Ex. DW-1/3 shows that it was valid till 31.03.2018. The defendant however has been dealing in the products of the plaintiff company unauthorizedly even thereafter and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction as prayed for.
44. Per contra, counsel for the defendant has argued that the plaintiff has not been able to prove its case. Plaintiff has only examined PW-1, who had no personal knowledge of the case. Plaintiff has also failed to prove the trademark certificates as per law and has only proved the copies of the trademark certificates as Mark 'C' to Mark 'J.' He also argued that PW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted that he had not seen the products manufactured by the plaintiff company during the period 2015 to 2017 and he was also not aware about the quality of products manufactured by the plaintiff company. Counsel for the plaintiff further argued that the print outs of the trademark certificates were taken out in his office but he has not taken out the print outs of the trademark certificates of the plaintiff company personally. In reply to the specific CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 23/28 question, PW-1 has deposed that print outs of the trademark certificates were taken in the office of the counsel as mentioned in his affidavit. It was argued that certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act has been filed by PW-1 and the said certificate has no value in the eyes of law as PW-1 was not in control of the computers and printers from which the print outs were taken nor he could have verified that there was no tempering in the records.
45. It is well settled principle of law that plaintiff has to prove its case and it cannot take advantage of the weaknesses of the case of other party. In the present case, perusal of the record would show that only the photocopies of the trademark certificates have been filed and relied upon by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has neither produced the original trademark certificates nor the plaintiff has produced the legal proceeding certificate in support of the trademark certificates. Plaintiff has also not examined any witness from the trademark registry to prove these certificates. Similarly, a perusal of affidavit u/O 11 Rule 6 CPC filed by PW-1 in support of the electronic document would show that PW-1 has deposed that he had taken the print outs of registration certificate/renewal certificate/general copies of trademark which were uploaded on the website of Trademark Registry and further deposed that at all the times the computer utilized by him was operating properly and there was no distortion in the accuracy of the contents of the hard copies of the print outs. However, in his cross examination, PW-1 has given contradictory replies. In para 5 of the cross-examination, he has deposed that he has not personally taken out the print outs of the trademark certificates but the same were taken in his office, whereas after para 6 in reply to specific question, he has deposed that print out of the trademark certificates were taken in the office of counsel as mentioned in his CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 24/28 affidavit. If PW-1 had not taken out the print outs, the affidavit under order 11 Rule 6 CPC loses its credibility and relevance. Not only this, perusal of testimony of PW-1 also shows that he was neither an employee of the plaintiff company nor he had seen the products manufactured by the plaintiff company during 2015, 2016 and 2017. He was also not aware about the quality of the products manufactured by the plaintiff company. PW-1 has further deposed that he had no personal knowledge about the investigation conducted by the plaintiff on 12.08.2023 or thereafter and he was unable to tell on how many social networking sites the advertisements of the defendant were present. He deposed that Nikhil Shah representative of plaintiff had informed him about the same on telephone and he had informed this fact to the counsel but he had not personally visited any website to check the information. PW-1 had no personal knowledge that the products found at the premises of the defendant were duplicate and he was told by the company that these products were duplicate. PW-1 was also not aware of the fact that all the dustbins of the plaintiff company do not have the wheels affixed to them. Thus, the testimony of PW-1 relied upon by the plaintiff is of no avail to it as this witness was not having any personal knowledge about the products of the company or the quality of the products of the company. It is pertinent to note here that one Mr. Ashraf Ali G.M-Anti counterfeit was present during the inspection conducted by the Ld. Local Commissioner and he had apprised the Ld. Local Commissioner about the counterfeit products. However, for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, the said official has not been examined by the plaintiff company to prove that counterfeit products were found at the premises of the defendant during the visit of the Ld. Local Commissioner.
CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 25/2846. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that since the plaintiff has failed to prove its registration of its trademarks in accordance with law, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff cannot maintain the suit for infringement of its trademark against the defendant.
47. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that it has been using the trademark Sintex since 1975 continuously and this fact has not been disputed by the defendant, rather defendant has admitted that his partnership firm was a distributor of the plaintiff company during the year 2017-18. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for the relief of injunction for restraining the defendant from passing off its goods as that of plaintiff and from using the trademark Sintex or logo or any other trademark identical or deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 5:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of delivery up and rendition of accounts? (OPP)
48. The onus of proving this issue was cast upon the plaintiff. In view of my findings on issues no. 1, 2 and 4 hereinabove, it is established that defendant had been selling the products bearing trademark Sintex of the plaintiff in an unauthorized manner and without the consent or permission of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of delivery up and rendition of accounts. Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 26/28Issue no. 6:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages as prayed for? (OPP)
49. The onus of proving this issue was cast upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs. 25,00,000/- from the defendant. However, the plaintiff has not examined any witness to prove the losses suffered by it due to the unauthorized use of the trademark Sintex of the plaintiff by the defendant. PW-1 in its evidence by way of affidavit has baldly stated that plaintiff has been suffering huge losses and damage by the unauthorized acts of the defendant. The defendant has also not filed any books of account during the course of the trial to show as to how much profit has been earned by him by unauthorizedly selling the products of the plaintiff company. Hence, in the absence of any evidence in this regard it is not possible for the court to arrive at the exact figure of loss suffered by the plaintiff company but it does not mean that the defendant, who has been unauthorizedly selling the products of the plaintiff should be let off without any penalty.
50. Hon'ble High Court in Larsen and Toubro Limited Vs. Chagan Bhai Patel reported at MIPR 2009(1)194 observed that it would be encouraging the violators of intellectual property, if the defendants notwithstanding having contested the suit, are not burdened with punitive damages.
51. This court finds itself in agreement with the aforesaid proposition of law and in such cases, damages must be awarded to the plaintiff. There is a larger public purpose involved to discourage such parties from CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 27/28 indulging in the acts of passing off/infringement of the intellectual property rights of the plaintiff. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to grant punitive damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the plaintiff. The issue is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
Relief:
52. In view of my findings on the issue no. 3 herein in above that the plaintiff has failed to establish that suit has been filed by duly authorized person on its behalf, the present suit is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by ANIL ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:
SISODIA 2025.09.12 16:03:02 +0530 Announced in the open Court (ANIL KUMAR SISODIA) Dated: 12.09.2025 DISTRICT JUDGE-04, CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI CS (COMM) 1264/23 Sintex Bapl Ltd. Vs. Deepak Kumar Page No. 28/28