Delhi District Court
Asics Corporation Through Constituted ... vs Grandstep Enterprises on 12 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOKESH KUMAR SHARMA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURTS)-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
In the matter of
CS (COMM) 172/2020
CNR No. DLST01-003059-2020
ASICS CORPORATION
1-1, Minatojima Nakamachi,
7 Chome Chuo-Ku
Kobe City Hyogo Prefecture, Japan
Through Constituted Attorney
Ms. Meena Bansal
96, Sukhdev Vihar,
Mathura Road,
New Delhi-110025 ..... Plaintiff
Versus
Grandstep Enterprises
Through its proprietors
Mr. Ramana Malik R. Jaat (Chaudhary) and
Mr. Ajay Ahir
Sector-26,
GIDC Plot no.- E/180,
Gandhinagar, Gujarat
Mobile No: 9978727070
E-mail- [email protected] ..... Defendants
Institution of the Suit : 25.06.2020
Arguments concluded on : 04.07.2025
Judgment pronounced on : 12.07.2025
JUDGEMENT
1. This suit u/s 134 & 135, 29 & 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 55 of Copyright Act, 1957 for permanent injunction is filed by the plaintiff for restraining CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 1 of 23 infringement of trade marks and passing off, copyright, damages and delivery up, etc. against defendant.
2. Brief facts:- As per plaintiff, who is claiming itself to be a Japanese Corporation having its Principal office at Plot 1- 1, Minatojima Nakamachi, 7 Chome Chuo-Ku, Kobe City Hyogo Prefecture, Japan and the present suit was filed by one Ms. Meena Bansal, Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff, who was stated to be duly authorized on behalf of the Plaintiff company to sign, verify and file the present lis as she was fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the present case.
It was stated that Plaintiff was engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, selling and trading goods i.e. shoes, clothing, sporting goods, sportswear and other allied and cognate goods. Plaintiff was the owner and proprietor of the trademark and various ASICS formative trademarks/labels in relation to its said goods and business.
It was stated that on 01.09.1949, Plaintiff had begun as Onituska Co. Ltd. and its founder Kihachiro Onitsuka, had started manufacturing basketball shoes in Kobe, Hyogo Prefecture, Japan and thereafter Plaintiff had branched out into Olympic styles in '50s, '60s and '70s and Onitsuka had become well known for the Mexico 66 design, which featured the 'crossed stripes', now synonymous with the company brand.
CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 2 of 23 It was stated that in 1977, Onitsuka Tiger had merged with GTO and JELENK, to form the current name and despite the change in its name, Plaintiff had continued selling a vintage range of Asics shoes under the "Onitsuka Tiger label"
and in the fiscal year 2006, plaintiff had generated 171 billion yen in net sales and 13 billion yen in net income.
Plaintiff was stated to have got registered the following trademarks in India under the Trade Marks Act, 1999:
Mark Application Class Status User Date of Valid upto Disclaimer (Profile no. Claimed Registratio Name) n 341997 25 Registered Proposed 23/10/1978 23/10/2026 No to be used 551897 25 Registered Proposed 31/05/1991 31/05/2025 No to be used 551902 25 Registered Proposed 31/05/1991 31/05/2025 No to be used ASICS 2690130 99 [18, 01/01/2001 03/03/2014 03/03/2024 No [Word 24, 25, Mark] 28, 35] Asics 3443285 25 Registered 01/04/2016 27/12/2016 27/12/2026 Associated Tiger with 341997, 385149,5518 97, 551902, 2690130 3443286 25 Registered 01/10/2016 27/12/2016 27/12/2026 Associated with 3443285 3443287 25 Registered 01/10/2016 27/12/2016 27/12/2026 Associated with 385149, 3443285, 3443286 It was stated that the copyrights involved in plaintiff's trademarks were original artistic works within the meaning of Indian Copyrights Act, 1957 and plaintiff had been using the said copyrights in the course of trade in relation to its goods and business among other things, within the meaning of Section 14 of the Copyrights Act and aforesaid trademarks were CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 3 of 23 enforceable within the ambit of the Copyrights Act, 1957 as well as by virtue of India's membership to the Berne Convention, the Universal Copyrights Convention and the International Copyright Order, 1991.
It was averred that Plaintiff had been continuously using its trade mark in relation to goods and business and had built up a great reputation and enviable goodwill thereunder and acquired proprietary rights therein.
It was stated further that plaintiff had continuously promoted its trademarks and related goods and business through extensive advertisements, publicities, promotions and marketing & marketing research and plaintiff's said trademarks/labels had become distinctive and acquired secondary significance with the plaintiff and plaintiff's said goods and business.
The plaintiff had a turnover of Rs.3,78,05,000 millions of Yen at the end of Financial Year 2019.
It was also stated that Plaintiff had got the domain name www.asics.com, registered in its favour and had also carried out its business activities through the said domain name.
It was stated that plaintiff had built up a globally valuable trade under its trademark and had conducted handsome business there and had acquired immense goodwill and reputation under the aforesaid trademark.
CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 4 of 23 Plaintiff's trademark was stated to be well known trademark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trademark Act.
3. It was stated that the Defendant was also engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing, soliciting, selling and trading of Apparels, clothing, readymade garments, accessories, and other allied and related products.
It was stated that in November, 2019, Plaintiff had come to know through reliable sources that defendant was carrying out manufacturing and selling of counterfeit goods under the Plaintiff's trademark/label in Gandhinagar, Gujarat. Accordingly, on 15.11.2019, Plaintiff's representative had lodged a Criminal Complaint u/s 63, 54, 65 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Section 420 of Indian Penal Code against the Defendant vide FIR no. 1/112/2019 dated 16.11.2019 at PS Gandhinagar. Thereafter, on the very same day, police officials had carried out the search and seizure action at the premises of the Defendants, leading to confiscation of a large quantity of counterfeit goods of Plaintiff under the Trade Mark/Label along with items of different brands like Under Armour, North Face, Puma, Adidas, etc. from the premises of the Defendant.
It was stated that the impugned trade mark/label as well as trade dress adopted and being used by the Defendant in relation to its impugned goods and business were identical with and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's said trade mark/label in each and every respect including phonetically, visually, structurally, in its basic idea and in its essential features. CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 5 of 23 It was stated that Defendant was not the proprietor of the impugned trade mark and had adopted and started using the same in relation to its impugned goods and business without the plaintiff's permission, thereby using and adopting the impugned trade mark of the Plaintiff, the defendant was violating the Plaintiff's trade rights, passing off and enabling others to pass off their impugned goods and business as that of the Plaintiff as well as diluting the Plaintiff's proprietary rights therein.
It was stated that in the 2nd week of March 2020, after the conduct of criminal raid and lodging of FIR [1/112/2019 dated 16.11.2019], Plaintiff had received information through the market sources that the defendant's representatives had started soliciting, networking impugned goods under the impugned Trade Mark/Label in markets of South Delhi. Upon conducting a market enquiry, Plaintiff had come to know that Defendant had not only started networking and soliciting but had also procured orders for counterfeit goods. The Plaintiff had also come to know that defendant was soliciting and trading the impugned goods through third party websites such as www.indiamart.com and www.justdial.com.
It was stated that despite being aware of the Plaintiff's existing rights in its said trademark/lable and the quantum of damages that could have been awarded against them in the criminal proceedings, which were pending before the Magistrate Court, Gandhinagar, defendant had again started carrying on its infringing activity.
CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 6 of 23 Defendant had been passing off its goods as those of plaintiff's goods and was getting the benefits from the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff.
It was averred further that defendant's marketing and advertising of its products was deceiving and misleading the public at large as buyers believed that those products were of the Plaintiff due to which Plaintiff had suffered significant losses and injury.
It was stated that the loss of money or injury sustained or likely to be sustained by the Plaintiff due to erroneous actions and conduct of defendants could not have been calculated in terms of money.
4. The cause of action was stated to have arisen firstly in November, 2019, when Plaintiff had come to know through reliable sources that defendant had carried out manufacturing and selling of counterfeit goods under the Plaintiff's trademark/label and had again arisen on 15.11.2019, when an FIR no. 1/112/2019 dated 16.11.2019 was lodged against the Defendant at PS Gandhinagar. The cause of action had further arisen on 15.11.2019, when a search & seizure action was conducted and had again arisen in the second week of March 2020, when Plaintiff had come to know through reliable market sources that Defendant had started soliciting, networking of the impugned goods under the impugned Trade Mark/Label in markets of South Delhi and had also arisen in the 2nd week of June 2020, after unlocking was commenced after the lockdown period of CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 7 of 23 COVID-19. The cause of action had further arisen when upon enquiry of the Plaintiff, it had come to know that Defendant had not only started networking and soliciting but had also procured orders for counterfeit goods from some dealers in South Delhi and the cause of action had again arisen in June 2020, when the Plaintiff had come to know that Defendant had started soliciting and trading the impugned goods through third party websites and it had again arisen when the Plaintiff had come to know that counterfeit goods were being sold in the markets of South Delhi under the impugned Trade Mark/Label without proper billing. The cause of action was stated to be still continuing and subsisting in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants.
5. Since the defendants were soliciting, networking and had intended to sell their impugned goods and business under the impugned trademark/label in the markets of South Delhi viz. Saket, Malviya Nagar, Mehrauli, Hauz Khas. etc. which were situated within the jurisdiction of this Court, and since the Plaintiff was also having an exclusive store at F-58, First Floor, Select Citywalk Mall, Saket, Delhi-110017 and was also selling through various dealers and distributors within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, hence this court was stated to have territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present lis by virtue of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks act, 1999 and also u/s 62(2) of the Copyright Act of 1957.
6. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the plaintiff had prayed for passing of a decree in favour of Plaintiff and against the defendant detailed as hereunder:-
CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 8 of 23
(a) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant by itself/themselves as also through his/their individual proprietors/partners, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf from soliciting, networking, importing, exporting, manufacturing, using, selling, displaying, advertising, purveying, through online marketplaces or online websites or through social medias or by any other mode or manner dealing in or using the impugned trademark/ label and/or any other word/mark/label which might be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trade mark and trade name "ASICS", in relation to their impugned goods and business of apparels, clothing, ready made garments, accessories, and other allied/related products and tags, labels, cut-outs, boards, accessories, machineries and allied and cognate items and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to:-
i. Infringement of plaintiff's aforesaid registered trademark.
ii. Passing off and violation of the plaintiff's rights in the plaintiff's said trade marks/labels.
CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 9 of 23 iii. Violation of Plaintiff's proprietary rights in its trade name.
iv. Infringement of Plaintiff's copyrights in its Labels.
(b) Restraining the defendant from disposing off or dealing with their assets including their premises at the addresses mentioned in the Memo of Parties and their stocks-in- trade or any other assets as may be brought to the notice of the Court during the course of the proceedings and on the defendant's disclosure thereof and which the defendant is called upon to disclose and/or on its ascertainment by the plaintiff as the plaintiff is not aware of the same as per Section 135(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as it could have adversely effected the plaintiff's ability to recover the costs and pecuniary reliefs thereon.
(c) For an order for delivery up of all the impugned finished and unfinished materials bearing the abovesaid impugned and violative trade mark/label or any other word/mark which might be identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trade mark/label/trade name including its blocks, labels, display boards, sign boards, trade literatures and goods etc. to the plaintiff for the purposes of destruction and erasure.
CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 10 of 23
(d) for the decree of grant of damages to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/-.
(d) For an order for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the defendant by its impugned illegal trade activities and a decree for the amount so found in favour of the plaintiff on such rendition of accounts.
(e) for an order for cost of proceedings.
7. Notice of this suit was issued to defendant, however, he could not be served as the summons sent to him by way of registered post were received back with the report "refused" as per order sheet dated 04.01.2021 and as per order sheet dated 20.12.2022 summons were received back with the report of "left".
Defendant was later on served by way of publication in the newspaper "The Statesman" dated 23.05.2023 (however, inadvertently it was written as "The Times of India newspaper dated 27.07.2023) in the order sheet but he had again failed to cause his appearance to duly contest the present suit. Accordingly, he was proceeded ex-parte on 17.08.2023.
8. In its ex-parte evidence, plaintiff had examined its AR Mrs. Meena Bansal W/o Sh. Sharvan Kumar Bansal aged about 54 yrs, R/o 96, Sukhdev Vihar, Mathura Road, New Delhi, CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 11 of 23 who had placed on record, affidavit PW1/A in her examination- in-chief reiterating the factual averments of plaint on solemn affirmation and had also placed on record the following documents:-
i. Ex. PW1/1(Colly)- True Representation of the products under the trademark/label of the Plaintiff .
ii. Ex. PW1/2 (Colly)- Photographs clicked during the criminal raid at defendant's premises of the impugned products under the impugned trade Mark/Label of the defendant.
iii. Ex. PW1/3 (Colly)- Analysis-cum-
authentication report.
iv. Ex. PW1/4 (Colly)- Status, Registration
Certificates, respective pages of Trademarks Journal [showing advertisements/publications of the registered trademarks] of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks in India.
v. Ex. PW1/5 (Colly)- Receipt of Legal Proceedings Certificate (applied with respect to the Receipt of the Plaintiff's Registered Trademarks).
vi. Ex. PW1/6 (Colly)- Advertisements of the Plaintiff's trademark/label.
vii. Ex. PW1/7 (Colly)- Screenshot of the plaintiff's website and at AMAZON showing availability of the plaintiff's goods within the jurisdiction of this Court.
CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 12 of 23 viii. Ex. PW1/8 (Colly)- Copy of Power of Attorney in favour of the Constituted Attorney.
ix. Ex. PW1/9 (Colly)- Copy of FIR (& its
translation) under No. 1/112/2019 dated
16/11/2019.
x. Ex. PW1/10 (Colly) - Documents related to
the presence of Defendant at JUST DIAL,
INDIAMART etc.
Since none had appeared on behalf of the defendant being ex-parte, hence this witness was not cross-examined on its behalf.
9. Thereafter Plaintiff's evidence was closed.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced at length at bar by Sh. Rishi Bansal, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff and also perused the material available on record.
11. It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff that since the claim of the Plaintiff had remained unchallenged and unrebutted, hence, Plaintiff is entitled to a decree in its favour being the registered owner and user of the trademark in question.
In support of his arguments and contentions regarding competence of GPA Holder to appear and depose as a witness, Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff has relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of our Hon'ble High CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 13 of 23 Court in RFA (Comm) 166/2025 in case titled as "Diamond Modular Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vikas Kumar & Anr", wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench speaking through HMJ C. Hari Shankar, J., while setting aside the judgment passed by this court only in case titled as "Diamond Modular Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Vikas Kumar & Anr CS(COMM) 172/2020" was pleased to hold as under:
"9.1. The next, and last, ground on which the learned Commercial Court has held against the appellant is that Mr. Piyush Gupta, who had testified as PW-1, was not competent to do so, as the facts of the case were within the exclusive knowledge and domain of Mr. Rajesh Gupta, who was the signatory to the plaint. The authorisation in favour of Mr. Piyush Gupta, it is noted, was executed only on 5 July 2024. The learned Commercial Court has, therefore, expressed surprise as to how Mr. Piyush Gupta could have deposed about the facts which took place from 1975 onwards. The findings of the learned Commercial Court in this regard read thus:
"Last but not least, AR of the Plaintiff, who had placed on record the Board Resolution as well as SPA Ex. PW1/28 has failed to explain as to how he had acquired the knowledge about the facts, which were exclusively within the knowledge and domain of Sh. Rajesh Gupta, who is signatory to the Plaint, especially when the authorization in his favour was executed only on 05.07.2024, and not on any date or occasion prior to that. It is also surprising as to how he could have deposed about the events and facts, which had taken place since the year 1975 onwards till the date of his deposition.
***** In view of my aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that Plaintiff has miserably CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 14 of 23 failed to substantiate its allegation as levelled against the defendants entitling it to a decree of injunction as prayed as the witness examined by it was not a competent witness to depose about the facts, which were actually within the exclusive knowledge and domain of Plaintiff alone."
9.2 To support this finding, the learned Commercial Court has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v lndusind Bank Ltd13 9.3 Mr Bansal submits that the appellant was a juristic entity and had, therefore, necessarily to be represented by a natural person. Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani, as Mr. Bansal correctly points out, is a case in which one natural person had given a power of attorney in respect of another natural person to represent him in the proceedings. The Supreme Court had held this to be impermissible.
9.4 In the present case, the power of attorney has been issued in favour of the appellant-company Diamond Modular Pvt Ltd by Mr. Piyush Gupta.
Moreover, as Mr. Piyush Gupta has himself stated in his affidavit in evidence and in the verification accompanying the said affidavit, he has based his assertions in the affidavit on the basis of the documents which were available. As such, his competence to depose with respect to the facts in controversy cannot be discountenanced. Mr. Bansal correctly submits that, in that view of the matter, it could not be said that Mr. Piyush Gupta was an incompetent witness and that, therefore, his testimony had to be disregarded.
9.5 Moreover, we have our reservations as to whether the learned Commercial Court could have returned such a finding, especially when the testimony of Mr. Piyush Gupta went uncontested in evidence. It goes without saying that the Court cannot seek to make out, in favour of a party, a CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 15 of 23 case which the party has itself not chosen to make out."
Similarly reliance has also been placed by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff on the citation of Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as "United Bank of India Vs. Naresh Kumar, AIR 1997 SC 3" decided on 18.09.1996, wherein Hon'ble Apex was pleased to hold as under:
"10. It cannot be disputed that a company like the appellant can sue and be sued in its own name.
Under Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure a pleading is required to be signed by the party and its pleader, if any. As a company is a juristic entity it is obvious that some person has to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company. Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, provides that in a suit by against a corporation the Secretary or any Director or other Principal officer of the corporation who is able to depose to the facts of the case might sign and verify on behalf of the company. Reading Order 6 Rule 14 together with Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it would appear that even in the absence of any formal letter of authority or power of attorney having been executed a person referred to in Rule 1 of Order 29 can, by virtue of the office which he holds, sign and verify the pleadings on behalf of the corporation. In addition thereto and de hors Order 29 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure , as a company is a juristic entity, it can duly authorise any person to sign the plaint or the written statement on its behalf and this would be regarded as sufficient compliance with the provisions of Order 6 Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure . A person may be expressly authorised to sign the pleadings on behalf of the company, for example by the Board of Directors passing a resolution to that effect or by a power of attorney being executed in favour of any individual. In absence CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 16 of 23 thereof and in cases where pleadings have been signed by one of it's officers a Corporation can ratify the said action of it's officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can, on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial, come to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by it's officer."
So far as the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for Plaintiff is concerned, in the cited para (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to hold that a company could have authorized anybody to sign and verify the pleadings on its behalf being a juristic entity, be it a plaint or a written statement. However it was not held in the said citation that the said person could have also appeared as a competent witness without deriving knowledge of the facts of the case either personally or through the records of the company.
Similarly, the Hon'ble Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court in the cited case (supra) had nowhere held that the reliance by this court on the citation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in "Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors", decided on 06.12.2004, was bad in law. Rather the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to hold that when the testimony of the sole witness had gone uncontested in evidence, then this court should not have returned such a finding and had tried to make out a case in favour of a party which the said party itself had not chosen to make out.
CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 17 of 23 In this regard it shall be worthwhile to mention here that the Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again had cautioned the courts through out the country to be more cautious while dealing with such a situation where one of the parties remained unrepresented such as :
1. Maya Devi vs Lalta Prasad, Supreme Court, AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 1356
41. "The absence of the Defendant does not absolve the Trial Court from fully satisfying itself of the factual and legal veracity of the Plaintiff's claim; nay, this feature of the litigation casts a greater responsibility and onerous obligation on the Trial Court as well as the Executing Court to be fully satisfied that the claim has been proved and substantiated to the hilt by the Plaintiff.
Reference to Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha vs Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 396, will be sufficient. The failure to file a Written Statement, thereby bringing Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC into operation, or the factum of Defendant having been set ex parte, does not invite a punishment in the form of an automatic decree. Both under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and on the invocation of Order IX of the CPC, the Court is nevertheless duty- bound to diligently ensure that the plaint stands proved and the prayers therein are worthy of being granted."
2. Ramrameshwari Devi & Others v. Nirmala Devi & Others, (2011) 8 SCC 249
44. Usually the court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions. The better course for the court is to give a short notice and in some cases even dasti notice, hear both the parties and then pass suitable biparte orders. Experience reveals CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 18 of 23 that ex-parte interim injunction orders in some cases can create havoc and getting them vacated or modified in our existing judicial system is a nightmare. Therefore, as a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or the respondents and in case the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits.
3. M/S Meenakshisundaram Textiles vs M/S Valliammal Textiles Ltd, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 356
11. "When the defendant is set ex parte, the burden is heavy on the Court, as it would not have the advantage of defence. Therefore, the Court should be extra careful in such cases and they should consider the pleadings and evidence and should arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree."
Now coming back to the facts of the present case, it is an admitted case of the Plaintiff that unless and until a raid was conducted and FIR was registered at Ghandinagar, Gujarat, the Plaintiff was unaware of any such activities allegedly carried out by the defendant. Though, it had been argued before me that the aforesaid FIR was registered at the behest of the Plaintiff company only, however, a bare perusal of the English translation of the said FIR filed on record reveals that it was registered at the behest of one Bhagwanbhai Natthudbhai Sonwane, who was stated to be working as Regional Manager with the company namely Parekh's Intellectual Services and his duty was to file complaints for protection of copyrights and trademark rights of various branded companies and his office was situated at 21, CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 19 of 23 Shreeji Tower, Opp. Himalaya Mall, Drive In Rd, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad.
It was stated further that his company was provided the authority by one company named "Armour" and while conducting the raid on behalf of his aforesaid client, some of the articles belonging to the plaintiff herein were also stated to have been recovered and as per FIR as mentioned at Sr. No. 8 and 9, 215 duplicate shorts having value of Rs. 500 per piece and thus totalling their worth of Rs. 1,07,500/- filled in 8 separate plastic bags as well as 80 duplicate tracks having value of Rs. 100 per piece thereby totalling Rs. 80,000/- filled in two white coloured plastic bags were allegedly recovered from the raided premises.
However, it shall be further worthwhile to point out here itself that apparently the present plaintiff had not authorized the said complainant to conduct any raids for the protection of its trademark, nor he was authorized to direct the police to seize the alleged counterfeited goods in respect of the present Plaintiff.
Even the FIR which formed the source of origin of this case was not duly proved in accordance with the provisions of law as apparently the AR of the Plaintiff was not the author of the said FIR, nor any recoveries were effected in her presence. Neither the author nor the concern police official from the concerned police station was called upon in the witness box to prove the said FIR, which could have lead further to the Plaintiff's proving his case by preponderance of probabilities.
CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 20 of 23 So far as document Ex. PW1/2, the photographs taken during the alleged raid are concerned, admittedly the AR of the Plaintiff, who had appeared in the witness box had not clicked the same nor these are the originals nor any negatives or any affidavit u/s 65-B of IEA in their respect was filed to prove the same even by secondary evidence.
So far as document Ex. PW1/3, which is analysis cum authenticity report issued by present AR is concerned, there is no reason mentioned in the said report on the basis of which the analysist had arrived at a conclusion that the goods seized were counterfeited as no comparison with the original goods belonging to the Plaintiff was apparently done while preparing the said report, as she had no occasion to have personally examined the alleged counterfeited goods which were seized by Gujarat Police, and were lying in its possession. Hence, the observations as made in the said report appears to be flimsy and imaginary.
Even the advertising material Ex. PW1/6, which are the print outs of some shoes of the Plaintiff are concerned, no certificate u/s 65-B of IEA had been filed along with the same as well.
So far as the power of attorney Ex. PW1/8 executed by the Plaintiff company in favour of its AR Ms. Meena Bansal is concerned, apparently, she was not authorized as on the date when the raid was conducted or the FIR was registered, rather she was authorized only on 26.12.2019, to institute the proceedings CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 21 of 23 on behalf of the Plaintiff and though it could be presumed that whatever PW1 had deposed was based not upon her personal knowledge of the facts, rather upon knowledge derived by her from the records of the Plaintiff company, however, there is no mention of any record from which PW1 could be presumed to have derived the knowledge of the facts of this case.
Not only this, but also, though Plaintiff had claimed in its plaint that the defendant was marketing its counterfeit products within the territorial jurisdiction of this court, however, no screen shots of any interactive website were ever placed on record showing the availability of the counterfeit goods manufactured or marked by the defendant to deceive the people more particularly targeted customers segment of the Plaintiff in the territory of South Delhi. Not only this, but also, though it was claimed that the goods of the defendant were easily available in the markets of South Delhi viz. Malviya Nagar, Saket, Hauz Khas etc. However not even an iota of evidence in support of this pea had been adduced on record, in the absence of which this plea remains merely a lip service without having any backing to the same.
So far as the contention of the Plaintiff that even after the raid, it had come to know from its reliable sources that defendant was again indulging into such activities of marketing, the counterfeit products is concerned, I have no hesitation in holding that no such instance had either been cited or proved on record that defendant had made any such attempt even after the raid at its premises.
CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 22 of 23 Law of injunctions is made to prevent the repetition of violation of legal rights of Plaintiff and merely one instance of violation does not ipso facto entitles a person to seek an injunction against the defendant, especially when there is no apprehension of any repeated violation of his/her right and there is no evidence on record the defendant had ever attempted to violate the rights of the Plaintiff subsequently in any manner whatsoever.
12. No evidence has been lead by the Plaintiff to prove its entitlement to claim damages from the defendant as well, hence, this relief can also not be granted to it.
13. In view of my aforesaid observations, I have no hesitation in holding that the Plaintiff herein has miserably failed to prove its case against the defendant even by preponderance of probabilities and it is the settled preposition of law as held above that the suit of the Plaintiff must stand on its own legs and merely because it has not been contested by the opposite side, that itself does not raise any legal presumption per se in favour of the authenticity and genuineness of the pleas taken in the plaint.
14. As a result, the present suit stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
15. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary legal formalities in this regard.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally signed
DATED:12.07.2025 LOKESH by LOKESH
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.12
15:07:20 +0530
(Lokesh Kumar Sharma)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-05
South/Saket/New Delhi
CS (COMM) 172/20 ASICS Corporation Through Constituted Attorney Ms. Meena Bansal Vs. Grandstep Enterprises Page 23 of 23