Delhi District Court
Under Armour Inc vs Bhaskar Bhasin on 16 October, 2023
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL)-2, WEST,
ROOM NO.209,EXTENSION BLOCK,
TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI
CNR NO.DLWT01-00352020222
CS (COMM) NO. 280/2022
IN THE MATTER OF :
UNDER ARMOUR INC
(A CORPORATION ORGANISED AND EXISTING
UNDER THE LAWS OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATE OF AMERICAN)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
102 HULL STREET BALTIMORE, MD 212330
UNITED STATE OF AMERICA
THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
MR. BHASKAR BHASIN
65-A, PKT-F, GTB ENCLAVE,
DILSHAD GARDEN, DELHI-110093
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RAVINDER SINGH
PROPRIETOR OF M/S EKTA COLLECTION
IX/344, SARASWATI BHANDAR,
GALI NO.1, GANDHI NAGAR,
DELHI-110031
.....DEFENDANT
Date of institution : 18.04.2022
Date of receiving by this Court : 30.05.2022
Date of conclusion of arguments : 04.10.2023
Date of announcement of judgment : 16.10.2023
UNDER ARMOUR INC VS RAVINDER SINGH
PAGE NO.1OF 10
2
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
1.By this judgment, I shall dispose off the application U/o XIII A CPC filed by plaintiff seeking Summary Judgment in a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark(s), passing off, damages rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc.
2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present application are that the plaintiff Company is registered under the laws of Maryland, United States of America, having its office at 102 Hull Street, Baltimore, MD 21230, United States of America and is engaged in manufacturing, sale and distribution of footwear, sports and casual wear including t- shirts, lowers, jackets, caps, other apparel and accessories across the world. The plaintiff company is the owner of trademarks "UNDER ARMOUR", "UA", "UA RECORD", , and the said trademarks and its logos are registered under the provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999 in India. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the Trademarks "UNDER ARMOUR", "UA", "UA RECORD", " ", and , and its logos are registered under various UNDER ARMOUR INC VS RAVINDER SINGH PAGE NO.2OF 10 3 classes of Trademarks Rules, 2002 in India. Plaintiff has also provided details of the same which are as under :
INDIAN REGISTRATIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY S. Name of Trade Applicatio Class Status Validity No. Applicant Mark n No. Date User Date:
1. UNDER UA 300907 9 Registered 06/07/2025 ARMOUR RECORD INC. (DEVICE)
2. UNDER UA 2084302 18 Registered 12/01/2021 ARMOUR (WORD) INC.
UA
3. UNDER UNDER 1317481 25 Registered 27/10/2024 ARMOUR ARMOUR INC.
(DEVICE)
4. UNDER UA 2084303 25 Registered 12/01/2021 ARMOUR (WORD) INC.
5. UNDER UA 2084304 28 Registered 12/01/2021 ARMOUR (WORD) INC.
6. UNDER UA 3274222 41 Registered 01/06/2026 ARMOUR RECORD INC.
UNDER ARMOUR INC VS RAVINDER SINGH PAGE NO.3OF 10 4
7. UNDER UNDER 3274224 42 Registered 01/06/2026 ARMOUR ARMOUR INC. INC.
8. UNDER UNDER 1788950 99 Registered 24/02/2029 ARMOUR ARMOUR INC.
9. UNDER 1788951 99 Registered 24/02/2029 ARMOUR INC.
3. It is further the case of the plaintiff that said trademarks are valid and subsisting and have full legal force. However, the Legal Protection Certificates (LPC) are in process. It is also claimed that all the said UNDER.
4. It is further the case of plaintiff that plaintiff is the owner of the copyright involved in the trademark which is label/colour combination/trade dress "UNDER ARMOUR", "UA", "UA RECORD", " ", and , etc in an artistic manner including its getup, lettering style, colour scheme, placement of words, artistic features etc in a unique manner. The plaintiff spends enormous amounts of money on its publicity and Research Development activities. It is claimed by the plaintiff that the purchasing public, trade and public at large associates, identifies and distinguishes the said trade mark/label/colour combination/trade dress with the goods of the plaintiff.
UNDER ARMOUR INC VS RAVINDER SINGH PAGE NO.4OF 10 5
5. It is alleged that defendant is also engaged in same business of manufacturing and retail of accessories and apparels and other related and allied and cognate goods The defendant dishonestly and malafidely adopted and commercially started using the Trade mark/label/colour combination/trade dress "UNDER ARMOUR", "UA", "UA RECORD", " ", and , etc. which has violated common law rights of the plaintiff. It is further alleged that in the 3 rd Week of March 2022, the plaintiff came across the impugned products/goods under the impugned UNDER ARMOUR Trade mark/label/colour combination/trade dress in the markets of New Delhi. The defendant is carrying on its impugned activities in clandestine manner and he is not issuing any formal bills and invoices against its sales. It is also alleged that due to the impugned activities of defendant, the plaintiff is suffering huge losses both in business and reputation.
6. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff also filed applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC r/w Section 135 of Trade Mark Act,1999 and under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC r/w Section 135 of Trade Mark Act,1999.
7. Both applications were disposed off vide order dated 20.04.2022 passed by Learned Predecessor of this Court with UNDER ARMOUR INC VS RAVINDER SINGH PAGE NO.5OF 10 6 observation that prima facie case of infringement of trademark, copyright and passing off was made out in favour of the plaintiff and defendant & all others acting on his behalf were restrained from using trade marks/logos of plaintiff. Local Commissioner was also appointed vide order dated 20.04.2022 of Learned Predecessor to seize impugned goods, accessories, packaging material and all other material bearing the falsified trade mark.
8. Summons of the suit and notice of accompanying applications were issued to defendant vide order dated 20.04.2022, passed by Learned Predecessor. However, despite service through whatsapp, none appeared for defendant . In view of the same, vide order dated 21.8.2023, defendant was proceeded exparte. Subsequent thereto, plaintiff filed application Under Order XIII A CPC r/w Section 151 CPC for summary judgment which is under disposal.
9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that plaintiff is seeking damages to the tune of Rs.3,05,000/- only and permanent injunction as mentioned in prayer clause Nos. 35(a) and 35(f) of plaint.
10. It was argued by learned counsel for plaintiff that as no written statement on behalf of defendant has been filed, hence, the averments of the plaintiff are unchallenged and unrebutted. In view thereof, summary judgment under Order UNDER ARMOUR INC VS RAVINDER SINGH PAGE NO.6OF 10 7 XIII A CPC be passed. Learned counsel for plaintiff also relied upon judgments titled as Infiniti Retail Limited Vs. Croma CS(COMM) No.71 of 20222 (Delhi High Court); Rediff Communications Limited Vs. Cbyerbooth and Ors. Suit No.1881 of 1999 (Delhi High Court); Yahoo Inc. Vs. Manoj Tulsani and Ors. CS(OS) No.3444 of 2012 (Delhi High Court) and Dhani Loans and Services Limited & Anr. Vs. WWW.dhanifinance.com & Ors. CS (Comm) 675/2019 and IA No.17453 (Delhi High Court) in support of his averments.
11. I have heard Sh. Ankush Aggarwal, learned counsel for plaintiff and have carefully perused the record.
12. Summary judgment as the name suggests is an outcome of the case decided summarily, based on the documentary evidence produced before the Court by the parties, without going for recording of evidence. The rule of Civil Procedure empowers the court to narrow issues and expedite proceedings by granting summary judgments where the common law permits. It is an effective tool for deciding cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that a trial is unnecessary. However, to grant a summary judgment, the court must be satisfied that there is no issue for trial. Rule 3 of Order XIII A of the CPC lays down the following grounds for Summary Judgment against a party on a claim, when it considers that :
UNDER ARMOUR INC VS RAVINDER SINGH PAGE NO.7OF 10 8
(a) The plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on a claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim : and
(b) There is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence.
13. In a case titled as "AMBAWATTA BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED VS. IMPERIA STRUCTURE LTD. AND ORS . reported as 2019 SCC ONLINE DL 8657, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as under:
"What has to be seen is, whether the defence pleaded, has any chance of succeeding of in law and if the answer is in the negative, a decree on admissions or order XXV of CPC or a summary judgment Under Order XIII A CPC as applicable to commercial dispute where Chapter X-A of the Delhi High Court (in original sites) Rules 2018 has to follow."
14. Similarly, in SYRMA TECHNOLOGY PVT. LTD. VS.
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES SWEDEN AD and another reported as 2020 SCC ONLINE MAD 5737, it was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court as under:
"This rule provides sufficient powers to the court to pass the conditional order. This power has to be exercised when it appears to the court that it is possible that a claim or defence may succeed but it is improbable that it shall do UNDER ARMOUR INC VS RAVINDER SINGH PAGE NO.8OF 10 9 so. If we read Order XIII A Rule 6 & 7 together, a clear picture would emerge. If it appears to the court that a claim or defence may succeed and it is also probable, then the application filed seeking a Summary judgment will have to be dismissed. If it appears to the Court that it is possible but improbable as stated in Rule 7 of Order XIII- A of the Code, then it may consider passing a conditional order."
If the court considers that a plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim there is no other compelling reason as to why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence, it may give a Summary judgment. Alternatively, the Court can also consider striking out the pleadings either in whole or in part. This discretion is given to the Court before deciding to give a summary judgment. Therefore, the court has to keep in mind and decide as to whether it is a fit case for striking out the pleadings dismissing an application and proceed further or a conditional order could be passed. After exhausting these stages, the question of granting a summary judgment would arise."
15. Now applying the principles of summary judgment to the facts of the instant case, I am of the considered opinion that that the defendant neither appeared nor filed any written statement to counter the allegations of plaintiff which are further supported by the report of Learned Local Commissioner dated 10.5.2022. Report of Learned Local Commissioner dated 10.5.2022 shows that 383 pieces of lowers of infringed trade mark were seized from Ekta Collection, 337 pieces of lowers of infringed trade mark were seized from M.A.Malik Garments and 6 T-shirts of infringed trade mark were seized from Daniya Garments. Report also shows that seized goods were kept in Cartons UNDER ARMOUR INC VS RAVINDER SINGH PAGE NO.9OF 10 10 which were handed over to the plaintiff on superdari. Thus, for want of rebuttal to the allegations, averments of plaintiff stand proved against the defendant. Hence, suit of the plaintiff stands decreed in its favour in terms of prayer clause in para 35 (a) and (f) of the plaint. Considering the large quantum of products that have been seized by the Local Commissioner and submissions of learned counsel for plaintiff, plaintiff is also entitled to the damage to the tune of Rs.3,05,000/- with cost .
16. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.10.2023 (HEMANI MALHOTRA) DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02/WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS EXTN. BLOCK, DELHI @ UNDER ARMOUR INC VS RAVINDER SINGH PAGE NO.10OF 10