Delhi District Court
Vijay Abrol vs Lakshay on 16 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT-10) CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS Comm 1411/2024
Sh. Vijay Abrol,
trading as
M/s Brite Stationers and Manufacturers
2557-Teliwara, Mahavir Bazar,
Delhi-110006 Plaintiff
Vs
Mr. Lakshay
S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Chawla
Trading as M/s Lakshay Enterprises
and also as
Reyansh Enterprises
2569-Sharwan Gali, Teliwara,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 Defendant
Date of Institution : 20.12.2024
Date of Arguments : 03.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 16.10.2025
JUDGMENT:-
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, RESTRAINING INFRINGEMENT OF TRADE MARK, PASSING OFF; RENDITION OF ACCOUNT OF PROFITS, DAMAGES AND DELIVERY UP OF INFRINGING MATERIAL PLAINT
1. Present suit for permanent injunction, restraining Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Page no. 1 of 18 Digitally signed CS Comm 1411/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:21:12 +0530 infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of account of profits, damages and delivery of infringing material has been filed by plaintiff against the defendant stating inter-alia in the plaint that :-
1.1. Plaintiff is carrying on its business of manufacturing and marketing of stationery goods including mathematical instruments, footrules, geometry box since 01.12.1992 under the tradename M/s Brite Stationers and Manufacturers.
1.2 Plaintiff is proprietor of trademark lables
such as (i) BRITE STATIONERS AND
MANUFACTURERS; (ii) SUMO and (iii) UNIVERSE etc., all registered under the Trade Marks Act 1999.
1.3 Trademark relevant for the present proceedings is label UNIVERSE in respect of mathematical instruments/geometry box duly registered under No. 1347068 dated 28.03.2005 in class 16 under Trade Marks Act 1999. Registration of said trade label is valid, subsisting and effective throughout India.
1.4 The trademark label UNIVERSE is unique and distinctive and plaintiff is continuously and extensively using the same since 01.04.2022.
1.5 Plaintiff has exclusive rights of the use of this trademark label UNIVERSE in relation to mathematical instruments/geometry box.
1.6 Plaintiff's trade label UNIVERSE has been widely advertised and plaintiff has spent several lakhs on Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Digitally signed Page no. 2 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:21:31 +0530 the publicity of his brands.
1.7 The said trademark label UNIVERSE is an original artistic work and plaintiff is owner of copyright in the said artistic work.
1.8 Recently it came to the knowledge of plaintiff that defendant has adopted identical trademark UNIVERSE in respect of mathematical instruments with his tradename Lakshay Enterprises on inner box and Reyansh Enterprise on box having confusingly color combination and arrangement and trademark UNIVERSE in respect of Mathematical Instruments/Geometry Box. The inner box and outer box of defendant is annexed with plaint as Annexure D-1 and D-2 respectively.
1.9 The trademark label UNIVERSE adopted and used by defendant is phonetically, structurally and visually similar to the prior in use and reputed trademark label UNIVERSE of plaintiff and adoption thereof by the defendant in a clandestine manner is illegal, unlawful and amounts to passing off of his goods as that of plaintiff's apart from infringement of trademark UNIVERSE of plaintiff.
1.11 Act and conduct of defendant therefore amounts to misrepresentation to the prospective customers. Confusion and deception to customers is inevitable as the defendant's mark is deceptively similar and defendant operates in same area, trade with common Digitally signed Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay AJAY by AJAY PANDEY Page no. 3 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:21:54 +0530 customers.
1.12 Acts of defendant also amount to exploit the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff and passing off his inferior quality mathematical instruments as that of plaintiff's superior quality mathematical instruments.
1.13 Reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff is eroded due to use of identical artistic label by defendant by using inferior and sub-standard quality of mathematical instruments which has caused irreparable loss to plaintiff. Hence, defendant is liable to be restrained from doing so.
1.14 Defendant is doing his illegal activities without license and permission from the plaintiff and liable to render true and complete accounts of profits earned by infringement of trademark UNIVERSE, passing off and reproduction of artistic work, deceptively and confusingly similar to that of plaintiff's.
1.15 Plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of rendition of accounts at Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs. 200/- each for other reliefs claimed in the suit.
1.16 Plaintiff instituted pre-litigation mediation proceedings which culminated into a non-starter report.
1.17 Hence, the present suit for injunction, restraining the defendant from using, selling, display, distribution, advertisement or in any other manner dealing in mathematical instruments/geometry box under the trademark label UNIVERSE or any other trademark Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Page no. 4 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:22:21 +0530 label which may be identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff's trademark UNIVERSE.
1.18 A decree of rendition of accounts of profit earned by defendant by use of trademark UNIVERSAL is also prayed along with cost of suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
2. Defendant was duly served with summons of suit and filed his written statement.
2.1 It is inter-alia stated in the preliminary objections of written statement that present suit is an abuse and misuse of process of law and same has been filed by plaintiff with malafide motive to extort money from the defendant. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant and suit is liable to be rejected under VII rule 11 CPC.
2.2 It is further stated that the word UNIVERSE is a very common word and there is no similarity between the products manufactured by the defendant and plaintiff. The name, color combination and arrangement of word UNIVERSE and artistic work on geometry box of defendant is quite different from the plaintiff's label, color combination and arrangement of name UNIVERSE. It is further stated that in plaintiff's Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Digitally signed Page no. 5 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:22:34 +0530 geometry box artistic work the word UNIVERSE is written in the middle of top of the geometry box but in the defendant's geometry box the same is written in the right side. The artistic work in the geometry box of plaintiff, the sun is at right side of geometry box but in the defendant's geometry box, the sun is at left side.
2.3 It is further stated that defendant had only manufactured 50 geometry boxes as sample by using word UNIVERSE but the same were not sold out and when it came to the knowledge of defendant that plaintiff is having a trademark of word UNIVERSE, the defendant disposed off the said geometry boxes and stopped using the word UNIVERSE on geometry boxes and thereafter not manufactured the geometry boxes by using word UNIVERSE.
2.4 In reply on merits, defendant does not deny the registration of plaintiff's trademark but vehemently disputed the date of user as stated in the plaintiff's trademark application. It denied that defendant has adopted identical trademark UNIVERSE in respect of mathematical instruments in his tradename Lakshay Enterpises on inner box and Reyansh Enterprises on box with confusingly similar color combination. It is further denied that defendant has been making sale of geometry box under trademark label UNIVERSE in clandestine manner in the same market. It is stated that there is no similarity between the products manufactured by the Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Digitally signed by Page no. 6 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 AJAY AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:22:46 +0530 defendant and plaintiff. Allegations in the preliminary objections are reiterated including the fact that that defendant had only manufactured 50 geometry boxes as sample by using word UNIVERSE but the same were not sold out and when it came to the knowledge of defendant that plaintiff is having a trademark of word UNIVERSE, the defendant disposed off the said geometry boxes and stopped using the word UNIVERSE on geometry boxes and thereafter not manufactured the geometry boxes by using word UNIVERSE. It is denied that trademark label of plaintiff is an original artistic work or the defendant has infringed the same. Dismissal of suit is prayed.
REPLICATION
3. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendant thereby reiterating facts stated in the plaint and denying contrary allegations of the written statement. In the replication, plaintiff denied that defendant had manufactured only 50 geometry boxes as sample by using the plaintiff's trademark UNIVERSE. It is stated that defendant had taken this false, vexatious and fivolous plea to avoid damages and compensation to plaintiff.
ISSUES
4. Vide order dated 29.04.2025, following issues Digitally signed Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay AJAY by AJAY PANDEY Page no. 7 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:22:56 +0530 were framed :-
1) Whether the defendant has infringed the trade mark of the plaintiff ? OPP
2) Whether the defendant has passed off his goods bearing the trade mark/name of the plaintiff? OPP
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunctions as prayed for ? OPP
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of account or in alternate to the decree of damages, if so, to what amount of damages ? OPP
6) Relief.
EVIDENCE
5. Plaintiff Sh. Vijay Abrol, filed his evidence in affidavit and examined himself as PW-1. During his testimony he proved the documents as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/30 which were mentioned in affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A.
6. Defendant Sh. Lakshay, filed his evidence in affidavit and examined himself as DW-1. He has not proved any document.
ARGUMENTS
7. Both the learned counsels for the parties addressed final arguments. Learned counsel for plaintiff also filed Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Digitally signed Page no. 8 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:23:07 +0530 written submissions.
8. Learned Sh. P.K. Jain, Advocate for plaintiff argued that plaintiff has duly proved its case against the defendant. The defendant has infringed the registered trademark of plaintiff due to which plaintiff has suffered irreparable loss.
9. Learned Sh. Vipin Kumar, Advocate for defendant argued that design used by defendant is entirely different from the design of plaintiff. He has further argued that court may compare by keeping both the designs side by side and then it would be found that there are lots of dissimilarities between the design of plaintiff and defendant.
10. Learned Sh. Vipin has further argued that defendant had only manufactured 50 geometry boxes as sample by using word UNIVERSE but the same were not sold out and when it came to the knowledge of defendant that plaintiff is having a trademark of word UNIVERSE, the defendant disposed off the said geometry boxes and stopped using the word UNIVERSE on geometry boxes and thereafter not manufactured the geometry boxes by using word UNIVERSE.
11. Arguments considered. Record perused.
FINDINGS
12. Issue wise findings of court are as under:-
Digitally signedSh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay AJAY by AJAY PANDEY Page no. 9 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:23:24 +0530 Issue no.1 :- Whether the defendant has infringed the trade mark of the plaintiff ? OPP
13. Onus to prove this issue was upon plaintiff. Sh.
P.K. Jain, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has successfully discharged onus to prove this issue. He argued that the plaintiff has successfully proved registration of his trademark UNIVERSE. He further argued that in his written statement defendant has admitted to have manufactured geometry boxes by using the registered trademark UNIVERSE of the plaintiff. He further argued that the defendant has even used the artistic work depicting universe on his geometry box and the said artistic work is confusingly and deceptively similar with the picture and artistic work used by the plaintiff in his geometry box.
14. Learned counsel for defendant submitted that defendant had only manufactured 50 geometry boxes as sample by using word UNIVERSE but the same were not sold out and when it came to the knowledge of defendant that plaintiff is having a trademark of word UNIVERSE, the defendant disposed off the said geometry boxes and stopped using the word UNIVERSE on geometry boxes and thereafter not manufactured the geometry boxes by using word UNIVERSE.
15. In the cases of COLGATE V. ANCHOR Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Digitally signed Page no. 10 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:23:42 +0530 108(2003) DLT51; FERRERO SPA V. RAJ BAID CS(OS) 404/2012 MANU/DE/3880/2014; DEVAGIRI FARMS V. SANJAY KAPUR 2016(65)PTC349 (DEL) and MOTHER DAIRY FRUIT & VEGETABLE PRIVATE LIMITED V. SRI VINAYAKA MILK PRODUCTS CS(OS) NO. 144/2011, Hon'ble Courts compared the trade-dresses of the defendant with that of the plaintiff's trade-dress. An injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff considering that the trade-dresses of the defendant were having almost similar or confusingly similar lay out, design, colour scheme, getup, arrangment of artistic features, lettering styles etc. Injunctions were allowed considering that the goods of both the parties were in the same classes and that the chances of likelihood of confusion cannot be ruled out. Variants of the art works in the packaging of the defendant, whenever found close to reproduction or deceptively or confusingly similar reproduction of art work of plaintiff were held as infringement of the plaintiff's copyright in the packagings. Section 2 (1)(h) of The Trademark Act 1999 defines the phrase "deceptively similar" - A mark shall be deemed to be deceptively similar to another mark if it so nearly resembles that other mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion.
16. It is categorically admitted in the written statement as well as in the testimony of the defendant that he had Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Digitally signed by Page no. 11 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 AJAY AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:23:57 +0530 manufactured geometry boxes by using the word UNIVERSE on those geometry boxes. It was argued by learned counsel for defendant that word UNIVERSE is very common and exclusive registration or copyright of the said word in favour of plaintiff should not be granted.
17. The court is not in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for defendant. The word UNIVERSE may be a very common word but the use of said word in respect of mathematical instruments or geometry boxes may not said to be very common. Plaintiff has associated the word with his geometry box and mathematical instruments which may be a unique association in the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, this court is of the humble opinion that registered trademark UNIVERSE of the plaintiff and artistic device associated with the same cannot be use by the defendant for same class of goods i.e. geometry box and mathematical instruments.
18. Learned counsel for defendant then argued that in the plaintiff's geometry boxes word UNIVERSE is written in the middle of top of geometry box but in the defendant's geometry boxes the same is written on the right side. Further in the artistic work of geometry box, the plaintiff's sun is on the right side but in the defendant's geometry box, sun is on the left side. He further argued that even color combination of both the Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Digitally signed Page no. 12 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:24:23 +0530 geometry boxes are different.
19. It is rightly submitted by learned counsel for plaintiff that court is not supposed to point-out dissimilarities in the two products by keeping them side by side. Overall impression to a common man has to be seen. Use of tradename/trademark UNIVERSE of the plaintiff with the artistic picture of planets in their different orbits is sufficient to confuse any common consumer. In the absence of keeping both the products side by side, any common person may presume that plaintiff's and defendant's product are manufactured or marketed by the same entity.
20. In humble opinion of this court the trademark/tradename and the tradedress adopted by the defendant so nearly resemble with the trademark/tradename of the plaintiff as to likely to deceive or cause confusion in the mind of an ordinary customer in the same class of goods.
21. In view of above discussion, it is held that defendant has infringed the trademark of plaintiff. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no.2 :- Whether the defendant has passed off his goods bearing the trade mark/name of the plaintiff? OPP.
22. The defence of the defendant in the written statement as well as in the evidence is that he Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Digitally signed Page no. 13 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:24:53 +0530 manufactured only 50 geometry boxes as sample by using the word UNIVERSE and had not sold out the same and disposed off the same after knowing that plaintiff is having trademark of the said work.
23. It is rightly submitted by learned Sh. P.K. Jain that defendant has not spelled out how he disposed off the geometry boxes allegedly manufactured by him. In his cross-examination defendant stated "It is correct that I got the geomatric box (depicted at annexure D1 of plaint) printed in Delhi but I do not remember the name of printer". The defendant did not produced any receipt or bill for printing of the geometry boxes with the tradename UNIVERSE. The defendant did not even spelled as to how he disposed off those geometry boxes. In his further cross-examination defendant stated "It is correct that minimum 30,000 covers of geomatric box is printed by Offset Printer". In the absence of any receipt of printing or other documents through which the defendant allegedly got prepared the alleged samples with the UNIVERSE trademark, it should be presumed that defendant got printed more than the minimum quantity of geometry boxes. Such minimum quantity as per own admission of defendant is 30,000/-.
24. In the absence of explanation by the defendant for disposing off those geometry boxes, it should be presumed that defendant has passed off those goods into the market. This issue is accordingly liable to decided in Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Digitally signed Page no. 14 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:25:03 +0530 favour of plaintiff. It is therefore held that defendant has passed off his goods bearing the trademark and tradedress deceptively similar with the trademark/tradedress of plaintiff.
Issue no.3:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunctions as prayed for ? OPP And Issue no.4:- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for? OPP
25. These two issues are taken together for decision.
Vide order dated 07.01.2025, defendant has already given statement that he will not use the trademark/tradedevice UNIVERSE as depicted in Annexure P1, Annexure D1 and Annexure D2 of plaint or any mark/device similar to Annexure P1 i.e. the trademark and tradedress of plaintiff.
26. The court has already held that by manufacturing the geometry box as depicted in Annexure D1 and D2 of plaint, defendant has infringed the trademark of plaintiff and passed-off his goods bearing the trademark similar to that of plaintiff. In view of the consequences of decision on issues no.1 and 2 and statement of defendant, plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent and mandatory injunction for restraining the defendant from using, selling, displaying, distribution, advertising or in any other manner dealing in mathematical Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Digitally signed Page no. 15 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:25:09 +0530 instruments/geometry box under the trademark label UNIVERSE or any other trademark label which may be identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff's trademark UNIVERSE as shown in Annexure P1, Annexure D1 and Annexure D2 of plaint. If any of such goods or geometry boxes are in possession and control of defendant, he shall hand over the same to plaintiff for destruction. If no such goods are currently in possession and control of defendant, he shall file an affidavit to that effect.
27. These issues are accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
Issue no.5 :- Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of account or in alternate to the decree of damages, if so, to what amount of damages ? OPP.
28. While deciding issue no.2, court has already referred to the admission of the defendant that minimum 30,000/- covers of geometry boxes are printed in off-set printing. The defendant has not placed on record any document or receipt through which he got printed the geometry boxes bearing the trademark and label deceptively similar to the registered trademark of plaintiff. Plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that defendant sold his goods without proper receipt. In the absence of proof of receipts of manufacturing and printing, court has to presume that defendant had manufactured and Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Digitally signed Page no. 16 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:25:20 +0530 passed-off his goods in clandestine manner without proper receipts. In the facts and circumstances, grant of decree of rendition of account would be futile exercise. Such directions to the defendant would unnecessarily lengthen the litigation without any fruitful result. In the facts and circumstances it would be proper that instead of granting a decree of rendition of account, decree of damages be awarded in favour of plaintiff.
29. The pecuniary jurisdiction of this court start over and above Rs.3.00 lakhs. Plaintiff has valued the suit for the purpose of rendition of account at Rs.3,50,000/-. Though in the opinion of this court, defendant has concealed actual number of geometry boxes passed-off by him after infringing the trademark of plaintiff, even the plaintiff has not proved any market survey or report about wide availability of those infringed goods in the market. In the facts and circumstances, this court is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.3,00,001/- (Rupees three lakhs and one only) would be sufficient amount of damages in favour of plaintiff.
30. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
Relief :-
31. In view of aforesaid discussion of court, a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction is passed in favour of plaintiff thereby restraining the defendant from Digitally signed Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay by AJAY Page no. 17 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024 AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date:
2025.10.16 15:25:27 +0530 using, selling, displaying, distribution, advertising or in any other manner dealing in mathematical instruments/geometry box under the trademark label UNIVERSE or any other trademark label which may be identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff's trademark UNIVERSE as shown in Annexure P1, Annexure D1 and Annexure D2 of plaint. The suit of plaintiff is further decreed with direction to the defendant to deliver such goods to the plaintiff if any such goods are still in his possession and control. If no such goods are currently in possession or control of defendant, he shall file an affidavit to that effect. Suit of plaintiff is further decreed for damages for an amount of Rs.3,00,001/- (Rupees three lakhs and one only).
32. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
33. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court AJAY
Digitally signed
by AJAY PANDEY
on the 16th day of October, 2025. PANDEY Date: 2025.10.16 15:25:33 +0530 (Ajay Pandey) District Judge (Commercial Court-10) Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Mr. Lakshay Page no. 18 of 18 CS Comm 1411/2024