Delhi District Court
Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs Satyajeet Singh And Anr on 17 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DR. NEERA BHARIHOKE
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-06
SOUTH EAST, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-002476-2024
CS (Comm) 168/2024
LENSKART SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.
(Earlier Valyoo Technologies Pvt. Ltd.)
A company registered under
Companies Act, having office at:
W-123, Greater Kailash Part-2,
New Delhi - 110048
Through its Authorised Representative
Mr. Sahil Arora
... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. MR. SATYAJEET SINGH
Shop No. 137/1,
Saklenabad Sadar,
Near Jail Gate Lanka,
Ghazipur,
Uttar Pradesh 233001.
2. MR. MITHILESH KUMAR SINGH
Shop No. 137/1,
Saklenabad Sadar,
Near Jail Gate Lanka,
Ghazipur,
Uttar Pradesh 233001.
E-Mail: [email protected]
Contact/ Whatsapp: 847103082
....Defendants
NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Digitally signed by
CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 1 of 36 NEERA
BHARIHOKE
Date: 2025.03.17
16:58:54 +0530
Date of institution of the suit : 14.03.2024
Date on which judgment was reserved : 28.02.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 17.03.2025
JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION, INFRINGEMENT OF REGISTERED TRADEMARK, INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT, PASSING OFF AND FOR DAMAGES.
1. By way of this judgment, I shall decide the suit of the Plaintiff filed for permanent injunction, infringement of registered trademark, infringement of copyright, passing off and for damages.
CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS SET UP IN THE PLAINT
2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the Plaintiff in the plaint are that:
a) The Plaintiff is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act having Registration No.178355 with ROC, Delhi and CIN No.U51494DL2008PTC178355. Plaintiff was originally incorporated on 19.05.2008 as Valyoo Technologies Pvt. Ltd and the name of the company had been changed to the present one by virue of Certificate of Incorporation consequent upon change of name issued in this regard.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 2 of 36 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 16:59:01 +0530
b) The present suit has been filed through its Authorized Representative Shri Sahil Arora as he was conversant with the business of the Plaintiff as well as facts of the present case and he was competent to sign, file, institute and depose the present suit.
c) The Plaintiff was engaged and associated with manufacturing of eye wear, sunglasses, contact lenses, prescription lenses and other allied & cognate /associated goods and accessories thereof and also had considerable know-how, expertise and experience in the marketing including wholesale marketing and distribution and sales of said goods through authorized retail outlets as also thro e-commerce portals.
d) The Plaintiff had been using a fanciful and inherently distinctive trademark "LENSKART" since the year 2009 in respect of the various aforesaid goods and services on an extensive scale and on an exclusive basis throughout the Republic of India. The said trademark "LENSKART" was a coined and invented trademark having no dictionary meaning and the Plaintiff claimed exclusive & proprietary rights over the same.
e) The Plaintiff also got created and had been using several artistic and distinctive labels comprising primarily of the trademark "LENSKART", distinctive color combinations and other artistic features thereby making the said label(s) unique & distinctive. One of such artistic & distinctive label pertains to the art-work/label Digitally signed by NEERA CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 3 of 36 NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.03.17 16:59:06 +0530 comprising of the trademark 'lenskart.com' being represented in an artistic and distinctive manner, distinctive device of inter-twined 'swirl'-giving the effect of a 'spectacle' having distinctive color combination of yellow, green and blue and other artistic & distinctive features. The said artistic work/ label was being represented hereinbelow:
f) The said artistic work/label "LENSKART" was got created by the Plaintiff after applying great labour and skill and as such, the Plaintiff, being the owner of the said artistic work claimed a copyright over the said artistic and distinctive label under the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act. The said artistic and distinctive label "LENSKART" was being used by the Plaintiff in the course of its trade as its prime trade mark/label & the same was also the 'House-mark'/ trade dress of the Plaintiff. The trade as well as purchasing public identifies the said trademark/ label /trade dress exclusively with the name of the Plaintiff. The said trademark/label had become popular with the advent of time by virtue of excellent quality aforesaid goods being sold under the said trademark/label "LENSKART". The Plaintiff was also the registered owner of the said artistic and distinctive copyright/ label of "LENSKART" under CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 4 of 36 NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 16:59:53 +0530 copyright registration number A-114479/2015 under the relevant provisions of the Copyright Act.
g) The primary, essential and distinctive feature of the said trade name/corporate name of the Plaintiff was "LENSKART" since 19/05/2008. The said Trade Mark/ Trade Name "LENSKART"
alongwith the said distinctive Label appears prominently and distinctively on all the product packaging, spectacle/lens covers, display boards, banners, various advertisements and promotional products that come in the market.
h) The Plaintiff had also been adopting and using several "LENSKART" formative / comprising marks wherein the trademark "LENSKART" forms one of the primary, essential and distinctive part. The said trademarks including "LENSKART.COM", "LENSKART LITE", "LENSKART ZERO", "LENSKART BLUE", "LENSKART BLU", "LENSKART PLUS", "LENSKART FLEX", "LENSKART NEURO", "LENSKART JEET" & "LENSKART AIR" [hereinafter the said trademarks mentioned herein would mean and referred to as "LENSKART" formative /comprising marks/trademarks] are being used in respect of the said goods and associated services in the course of trade on an extensive scale and on an exclusive basis throughout India whereby the said trademarks / service marks had acquired factual distinctiveness and unique goodwill and reputation associated exclusively with the name of Plaintiff. The said trademark "LENSKART" and said LENSKART Digitally signed by NEERA CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 5 of 36 NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.03.17 17:00:00 +0530 formative/ comprising trademarks had acquired the distinction of well-recognized & well-known marks under the Trademarks Act.
i) The Plaintiff was also registered proprietor of the Trade Mark "LENSKART" as well as said formative/comprising trademarks under the relevant provisions of Trademark Act under:
Trademark Number Date Class Status
LENSKART 22022717 09/09/2011 42 Registered vaild till
09.09.2031
LENSKART 2211721 27/09/2011 35 Registered valid till
(Label) 27.09.2031
LENSKART 2566727 18/07/2013 35 Registration valid till
(Device) 18.07.2033
LENSKART 2889509 22/01/2015 09,35,41 Registration valid till
(Label) 22.01.2025
LENSKART 2750651 05/06/2014 44 Registration valid till
05.06.2024
j) The aforesaid registered trademarks were valid, subsisting and in
force. By virtue of the said registrations, the Plaintiff had acquired sole and exclusive statutory right to use the said trademarks under Section 28(1) of the Trademarks Act as well as to restrain any unauthorized user of any other identical/ similar/ deceptively similar trademark/ service mark thereto in respect of identical/ similar/ allied and cognate/ associated goods, services and business.
k) The trademark/trade name "LENSKART" would mean and include the use of the aforesaid artistic and distinctive art-work NEERA CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 6 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:00:06 +0530 "LENSKART" as well in respect of the aforesaid goods & services, by virtue of prior, long, continuous, extensive and exclusive user for the last more than a decade, had become distinctive and associated with the name of the Plaintiff alone.
l) By virtue of the excellent quality of products and services being provided by the Plaintiff under the said Trade Marks, there was a great demand of the said goods and services of the Plaintiff under the said Trademark. The Trade Marks within a short span of time of the launching of the said trademark, had acquired a unique goodwill reputation amongst the industry and purchasing poblic at large being associated exclusively with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff's said trademark was one of the top selling brands in respect of the said goods/services/industry.
m) The Plaintiff maintained top quality standards in respect of its aforesaid goods sold & services provided under its said Trade Mark/ Trade Name "LENSKART". The said Trade Mark/ Trade Name "LENSKART", by virtue of prior, long, continuous, exclusive and extensive user throughout India coupled with the extensive and continuous advertisements, had acquired factual distinctiveness and the same was associated exclusively with the name of the Plaintiff by trade and industry as well as general public who identified/related/associated the said trademark/label "LENSKART"
with the name of the Plaintiff only and thus the said trademark / trade name/label "LENSKART" of the Plaintiff had acquired the NEERA CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 7 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:00:13 +0530 distinction of a well-known mark under the Trademarks Act and was associated exclusively with the name of the Plaintiff.
n) The Plaintiff had been selling its said goods as well as providing its said services under the trademark trade name "LENSKART" throughout the India through its authorized retailers at their retail outlets online marketing/e-commerce portal www.lenskart.com, franchiseed, affiliated whereby sales of goods and revenue generated from the said sales run in to several crores of rupees.
o) The website of the Plaintiff is www.lenskart.com which was accessible from anywhere by millions of users and prospective customers. The said website was acquired by the Plaintiff in the year 2010 whereby in the said domain/website, the trademark "LENSKART" forms the primary, essential and distinctive part. The said website contained the entire information about the Plaintiff, its products which included thousands of spectacles of various designs as well as various other products of Plaintiff, description of the said services of the Plaintiff, clientele of the Plaintiff whereby the prospective customers of the products of the Plaintiff could view the desired product, made comparative analysis of the products vis-à-vis their respective looks & design and also placed orders for such products of the Plaintiff on the said web portal.
p) That the Plaintiff had been extensively advertising its said reputed trademark "LENSKART" through print media including newspapers, NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 8 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:00:19 +0530 magazines, sign-boards & leaflets, electronic media & web media including through its said website. The Plaintiff had been spending huge amounts on advertisement and sales promotional activities, by itself as well as through its said distributors/ dealers/sister concerns/agents/Franchisees/Licensees to promote its said trademark "LENSKART" throughout India.
q) The total sales figures of the Plaintiff with respect to sales of the said goods & revenue generated from the said services & advertisement & sales promotion expenses under the said trademark/label/ trade name 'LENSKART for the last few years as detailed hereunder:-
Revenue (Incl other Marketing & promotional income) (in Rupees) expenses (in Rupees) 2017 182,02,90,000 58,10,14,000 2018 310,98,40,000 52,05,40,000 2019 486,26,30,000 64,5750,000 2020 963,66,50,000 110,92,40,000 2021 1005,86,80,000 126,35,20,000 2022 1498,73,70,000 2023 2374,98,80,000
r) The Plaintiff claimed sole and exclusive proprietory rights over the said trade mark/ trade name 'LENSKART' in respect of the said goods & services under the common Law by virtue of prior adoption NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 9 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:00:25 +0530 coupled with prior, long, continuous, extensive and exclusive user for the last more than a decade as of now and under the statute of the Trademarks Act by virtue of the said registrations of the trademark/label "LENSKART" & said "LENSKART" formative/ comprising trademarks under the said Act.
s) The Plaintiff also claimed sole and exclusive proprietory rights as well as copyright over the said artistic and distinctive label "LENSKART" under the Copyright Act by virtue of being the owner of the said distinctive art-work as well as under the common Law being the prior user of the said distinctive art-work/label as well as registered owner of the said art-work under the provisions of the Copyright Act.
t) The use of the said trade mark/trade name "LENSKART" or any other similar/deceptively similar trade mark/trade name thereto in respect of the identical/ similar/allied & cognate/associated goods and/or services by any other person, except the Plaintiff, was bound to cause confusion and deception amongst the trade and public and such misuse would amount to unfair trade practice & infringement of the proprietary rights of the Plaintiff with respect to its prior, reputed, registered and established trade mark/ trade name "LENSKART" in respect of the aforesaid goods & services and/or similar/allied & cognate/associated goods & services.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 10 of 36 BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:00:30 +0530 u) The Plaintiff further submitted that the use of the aforesaid artistic work / label in any manner whatsoever, either by way of substantial reproduction or as a material reproduction or in any infringing manner, by any other person without the consent/permission of the Plaintiff, shall amount to infringement of the proprietory rights of the Plaintiff with respect to the aforesaid distinctive art-work/label "LENSKART" duly protected under the Copyright Act.
v) The Plaintiff had been enforcing its rights and protecting the said marks vigorously by way of legal proceedings. The Plaintiff had been granted protection by Courts in respect of the said marks and infringing parties had been restrained from mark by way of interim injunction as also nom injection and damages.
w) Plaintiff had granted a franchise to the Defendants for operation of Authorised Outlet under the Mark "Lenskart" at SHOP NO. 137/1, SAKLENABAD SADAR, NEAR JAIL GATE LANKA, GHAZIPUR, UTTAR PRADESH 233001 in terms of Franchisee Agreement dated 18.06.2021. The Defendant no.1 was the proprietor while the Defendant no.2 was the father of the Defendant no.1 and was managing the affairs alongwith him.
x) The said Agreement was formally terminated on 12.02.2024 by way of termination notice to the said effect with immediate effect. The said termination was issued consequent to the communication dated NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 11 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:00:37 +0530 07.02.2024 received from the Defendants who had already stated to have stopped the operations from 01.02.2024.
y) By way of the said termination notice dated 12.02.2024, the Defendants were called upon to:
(a) To cease forthwith to make use of the Intellectual Property and to return to/ deposit with the Company all Intellectual Property (in whatever form or medium stored, displayed, represented including all copies of the Development Standards and Specifications, Operational Standards and Specifications and Brand Use and Marketing Policy, NPS Policy all stationery, documents, carry bags, promotional materials, signs and other items related to the Authorized Products/Authorized Outlets) without retaining the same in any form or any copies thereof.
(b) to pay the Company any and all sums of money due for the period upto termination without any right of deduction or set-off;
and
(c) to return to the Company all its Confidential Information without retaining the same in any form or any copies thereof
(d) to cease to operate the Authorized Outlet and desist from directly or indirectly, representing or holding yourselves out as a licensee of the Trade Mark.
z) The Defendants were further called upon to cease and desist from:
(a) carrying on any business or activity that competes with the business of the Company;
(b) carrying on any business or activity that would result in trading, wholesaling, distributing, retailing or otherwise dealing in NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 12 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:00:43 +0530 any products or merchandise that are similar to the Authorized Products;
(c) inducing or attempting to induce any supplier, vendor, employee, agent, franchisee, licensee, or business partner /associate of our client to cease to supply, deal with, or to restrict or vary the commercial terms between the Company and such Persons, or otherwise interfere with the relationship between the Company and such Persons, directly or indirectly.
(d) inducing or attempting in any manner to induce any employees of a Party to cease their employment relationship with such Party, directly or indirectly.
(e) approaching or entertaining the Company or its existing or prospective vendors, customers, business partners, franchisees, Affiliates, associates, directly or indirectly for any kind of employment opportunities in any eyewear related business or do any act which will result in loss of revenue to the Licensor or results in shift of business from Licensor to any other company/ organization/ entity that competes with the business of the Licensor.
(f) wholesale the Authorized Products to any Person including any of its Affiliates or associates;
aa) The Defendant failed to comply with the said demands made under the termination notice and failed to return the intellectual property of the Plaintiff including the stocks and deferred/ refused to do the same on one pretext or the other despite being called upon to do so by the Plaintiff.
bb) The Plaintiff received a complaint dated 23.02.2024 from a customer Mr. Shubham to the effect that he had purchased two frames from the outlet of the Plaintiff at Shop No 137/1, Sadar, NEERA CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 13 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:00:49 +0530 Saklenabad, Ghazipur, Uttar Pradesh 233001 but the store representative did not provide him with the original bill despite visiting the store a number of times and threatening to file a complaint for the same. The said complaint was registered at the end of the Plaintiff vide Ticket #77848435.
cc) The matter was immediately got verified at the end of the Plaintiff by one of its representatives. The said facts of the Defendants continuing to use the intellectual property of the Plaintiff and dealing in its products from the same outlet where the authorized outlet was earlier running were confirmed on 28.02.2024. The said representative of the Plaintiff who visited the outlet, purchased products and took photographs of the outside of the store with an invoice and display along with the newspaper of the day i.e. 28.02.2024.
dd) The Defendants were continuing to carry on business in the name of "Lenskart" and were dealing in the products of the Plaintiff and unauthorizedly using the intellectual property of the Plaintiff "LENSKART" to run its business of optical retail/ eyewear apart from operating with the same trade dress as was being used for the Authorized Outlet of the Plaintiff. The Defendants were also using the "Lenskart" logo of the Plaintiff. From the invoice generated from the said outlet it came forth that they were also using stamps with the name "Lenskart.com".
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 14 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:00:56 +0530 ee) The Defendant was carrying out business of eyewear from the very same premises from where the authorized outlet of the Plaintiff was earlier operating before being terminated and not only using the display board having the mark and logo of the Plaintiff but also using the same trade dress, similar name and logo as that of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant was seeking to continue to create an association with the Plaintiff despite the Plaintiff having no concern and having granted no rights to the Defendant.
ff) Under Clause 12 of the Agreement, it was agreed between the parties that franchisee shall during the term of the Agreement and for a period of 1 year after its termination shall not either itself or through its Affiliates directly or indirectly, without the prior written consent of the franchisor involve in any business activity that competes with the business of the franchisor neither from the location nor any other geographical area or solicit any business, for itself or for other persons, from any person that has business relationships with the Franchisor apart from other reasonable restrictions considering the goodwill and reputation of the Franchisor audits products on which the Franchisee has no right to trade upon. It was further agreed that in the event of breach of the aforesaid, franchisee shall pay to the franchisor an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as liquidated damages as a genuine pre-estimate of the damage that would be suffered by the franchisor as a result of such breach.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 15 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:01:02 +0530 gg) The Plaintiff was aggrieved and gravely prejudiced by the aforesaid infringing activities of the Defendant and hence was constrained in filing the present suit before this court.
hh) The Defendant had no rationale for using the marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff at the premises where the authorized outlet of the Plaintiff was earlier operating, except to seek to pass off its store/retailing activities and the goods and services offered therein as that of the Plaintiff. The use of the marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff had been done deliberately to deceive the customers and obtain undue benefit by seeking to create an association with the Plaintiff.
ii) The Plaintiff submitted that the use of the marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff was infringing the copyright of the Plaintiff with respect to its said artistic & distinctive label/copyright "LENSKART".
jj) The use of the marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff was unauthorized and without the consent and permission of the Plaintiff. The said unauthorized use of marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff amounted to infringement of proprietary rights of the Plaintiff with respect to the prior used, reputed, well-known and established trademark/ trade name "LENSKART" of the Plaintiffs as well as infringement of the said registered trademarks. Further, the unauthorized & infringing use of the similar logo/label by the Defendant amounted to infringement of copyright of the Plaintiff with respect to the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 16 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:01:10 +0530 Plaintiffs' original, novel, artistic and distinctive label duly protected under the Copyright Act. The said unauthorized use of the infringing trademark/ trade name/label by the Defendant despite having no right or entitlement to do so, was nothing but a brazen attempt on its part to trade upon the established goodwill and reputation of the Trade Mark/ Trade Name "LENSKART" of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is the Registered Proprietor of the Trade Mark/ Trade Name "LENSKART" and no other person, including the Defendant, its agents, associates or accomplices, have any rights whatsoever to infringe the statutory and common law rights of the Plaintiffs vis-à-vis the said intellectual property rights or to trade upon or attempt to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff or usurp and misuse & impinge upon the Intellectual Property rights which attempt on its part is dishonest, tainted with malafides.
kk) The said unauthorized use of the marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff by the Defendant despite having no right or entitlement to do so is nothing but a brazen attempt on the part of the Defendant to trade, upon the established goodwill and reputation of the Trade Mark/ Trade Name "LENSKART" of the Plaintiff in respect of identical goods/services/business. The Defendant was operating under identical trade name/ trading style as that of the Plaintiff deliberately and intentionally in order to pass off its goods and services as those of the Plaintiff which was an infringement of the proprietary rights of the Plaintiff and is dishonest, malafide, tainted NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 17 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:01:16 +0530 and solely with a view to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff. The Defendant had no justification for the adoption and use of the infringing marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff in respect of identical business. The infringing use of marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff for the identical/ same set of goods and services as that of the Plaintiff, by the Defendant amounted to misrepresentation during the course of trade as the Defendant had deliberately, mischievously and knowingly violated the proprietary rights of the Plaintiff with respect to the prior used and registered trade mark/ trade name "LENSKART" for the reasons that the Plaintiff's trade mark/trade name "LENSKART" is very reputed & well-known whereas the Defendant had fraudulently and dishonestly adopted infringing name/ mark/logo so as to cause confusion and deception amongst the trade and general public buying the said goods and/or availing such services and further to pass off its sub-standard goods and services as the superior quality goods and services of the Plaintiff. Since the Plaintiff is the Registered Proprietor of the Trade Mark/ Trade Name "LENSKART" under the Trademarks Act, therefore, no other person including the Defendant, its agents, associates or accomplices, had any rights whatsoever to infringe the statutory and common law rights of the Plaintiffs vis-à-vis the said intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff or to trade upon or attempt to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff qua the said rights and/or usurp, misuse & impinge upon the NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 18 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:01:22 +0530 Intellectual Property rights which attempt on the part of the Defendant was dishonest, tainted with malafides.
ll) The Defendant was operating and using the marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff deliberately and intentionally in order to pass off its goods and services as those of the Plaintiff. The continual use of the marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff by the Defendant was an infringement of the proprietary rights of the Plaintiff and was dishonest, malafide, tainted and solely with a view to trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff.
mm) The infringing use of marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff for the identical/ same set of goods and services as that of the Plaintiff, by the Defendant amounts to misrepresentation during the course of trade as the Defendant had deliberately, mischievously and knowingly violated the proprietary rights of the Plaintiff with respect to the prior used and registered trade mark/ trade name/label "LENSKART" for the reasons that the Plaintiff's trade mark/trade name "LENSKART" is very reputed & well-known whereas the Defendant fraudulently and dishonestly adopted and continued sine he said infringing marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff so as to cause confusion and deception amongst the trade and general public buying/intending to buy the said goods and/or availing such services and further to pass off their sub-standard goods and services as the superior quality goods and services of the Plaintiff.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 19 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:01:28 +0530 nn) The goods and services of the Plaintiff and those of the Defendant were identical/similar/allied & cognate /associated, likely to be traded/provided in the same shops over the same counters being purchased/availed by the same class of purchasers having identical needs and as such, the trade, industry and purchasing public are likely to be confused/ deceived and are likely to assume as if the goods and services being provided by the Defendant were also emanating from the Plaintiff, or, they are likely to assume some affiliation, sponsorship, association or nexus of the Defendant with the Plaintiff or that the goods and services of the Defendant are, in one way or the other, connected with the Plaintiff or that the Defendant was still one of the branches/licensees/ franchisees of the Plaintiff with respect to the trade mark/ name "LENSKART" whereas actually it shall not be so.
oo) The Defendant had no justification for the adoption and use of the marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff in respect of identical/similar business and identical/similar goods and services. The Defendant had adopted and fraudulently been using the infringing marks/ name/logo of there Plaintiff with ulterior motives and dishonest intentions to trade upon the established goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's prior adopted & prior used proprietary & registered trade mark/label "LENSKART" & said trade name and further to earn undue profits in illegal manner.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 20 of 36 by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:01:34 +0530 pp) The Defendant by its wrongful activities is diverting the business of the Plaintiff and earning unjust profits to which the Defendant was not entitled to, thereby causing irreparable loss and injury to the Plaintiff and also to the public at large by misrepresentation and fraud. At the same time, the Defendant was also harming the goodwill and reputation as well as diluting the Trade Mark/ Trade Name "LENSKART" of the Plaintiff. The aforesaid acts of falsification by the Defendant shall result in the dilution & blurring of the Plaintiff's prior used, registered and carefully nurtured trade mark/ name/copyright "LENSKART".
qq) The conduct of the Defendant was solely motivated to encash upon the unsurpassed goodwill and reputation earned by the Plaintiff and to earn easy, undue and illegal profits by passing off its goods and services as those of the Plaintiff, causing irreparable loss and injury to the Plaintiff as also to the public at large. The operating of establishment with marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff in respect of identical business by the Defendant and its agents, associates and accomplices online/ at the present sites or at any other place is totally illegal, unlawful and unauthorized, since the Plaintiff is the sole & exclusive owner as well as registered proprietor of Trade Mark/label/ Trade Name "LENSKART".
rr) The activities of the Defendant and its associates and accomplices were completely unlawful, illegal, arbitrary and greatly prejudicial to right and interests of the Plaintiff. Because of the Defendant and Digitally signed by CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 21 of 36 NEERA NEERA BHARIHOKE BHARIHOKE Date:
2025.03.17 17:01:41 +0530 its agents, associates and accomplices, the aforesaid illegal and unlawful activities on the part of the Plaintiff had suffered and was continuously suffering severe losses in its goodwill, reputation and business, the losses which cannot be ascertained in terms of money. The Plaintiff tentatively claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages from the Defendant, its agents, associates and accomplices for the said losses suffered by the Plaintiff and caused by the Defendant. The Plaintiff also claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as liquidated damages in terms of Clause 12 of the Agreement. The Plaintiff was thus claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages from the Defendant, its agents, associates and accomplices for the said losses suffered by the Plaintiff and caused by the Defendant. The Plaintiff reserved its right to claim further, actual and additional damages from the Defendant, its agents, associates and accomplices, if found due to them, at a later stage.
ss) The Defendant, their agent and accomplices, had dishonestly and fraudulently adopted and were using the infringing marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff to encash upon the goodwill and reputation of the Trade Mark/ Trade Name "LENSKART" which is the exclusive property of the Plaintiff, causing severe losses and prejudice to Plaintiff and also duping gullible public who associate the said intellectual property rights with the Plaintiff. The Defendant had thus caused wrongful losses to the Plaintiff as also NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 22 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:01:47 +0530 to the general public and had made wrongful gains at the Plaintiff's expense, prejudice and detriment.
3. Hence, the present suit has been filed. The Plaintiff also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC with the plaint for seeking urgent relief of interim injunction against the Defendant. In view of the urgency of relief claimed, the Plaintiff did not comply with the provision of pre-litigation mediation. The said fact was also recorded in the order 14.03.2024.
4. In the application of the Plaintiff filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC, Plaintiff prayed for seeking an order of ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants No.1 and 2 as also through their proprietor/partners, assigns-in-business, dealers, distributors, agents, stockists and all other persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in 'Eye wear, sunglasses, contact lenses, prescription lenses, and other allied & cognate /associated goods' under the infringing marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff at their present premises or at any other place and / or from using any other similar/deceptively similar trade mark thereto in respect of identical/similar/allied & cognate goods/services/business, which may constitute infringement of proprietary rights of the Plaintiff with respect to Plaintiff's prior used, reputed and well-recognized trade mark/ trade name 'LENSKART'.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 23 of 36 BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:01:52 +0530
5. The said application was allowed in favour of the Plaintiff vide order dated 14.03.2024. The Plaintiff considered dropping Defendant no.2 from the array of the parties if he took the stand. Accordingly, by way of ex parte ad-interim order, the Defendants were directed to immediately stop running the store using the copyright and trademark of the Plaintiff in any form. It was also directed that the Defendants shall maintain and preserve the accounts from the date of termination of the agreement regarding the business done by them from the date of termination of the agreement.
6. On next date of hearing, i.e. 26.04.2024, it was observed that the summons sent to the Defendants by posts were returned with the report of 'left' and that the Defendants had been served by e-mail and WhatsApp on 21.03.2024. It was also observed that the Defendants were served with the copy of the order dated 14.03.2024 on 18.03.2024. On the same day, the application of the Plaintiff filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC was listed. Notice of the application was issued against the Defendants and the matter was adjourned to 17.05.2024.
7. The application of the Plaintiff filed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A was allowed in favour of the Plaintiff vide order dated 17.05.2024 and the cost of Rs.2,00,000/- was imposed on the Defendants for the violation of the interim order dated 14.03.2024.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 24 of 36 BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:01:59 +0530
8. As observed earlier, the Defendants were served on 18.03.2024. Defendants were also served through e-mail on 21.03.2024. But no Written Statement was filed by the Defendants, nor did anyone appear on behalf of Defendants. On 26.04.2024, the suit was proceeded ex parte against Defendants. The matter was then adjourned for Plaintiff's Evidence.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
9. Plaintiff examined PW-1 Shri Sahil Arora on 04.10.2024. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-1/X. He reiterated the contents of the plaint and relied upon the following documents: -
i. Certificate of incorporation of the Plaintiff Company is Ex. PW-
1/1.
ii. Copy of the Board Resolution dated 03.08.23 is Ex. PW-1/2. iii. Copy of authority letter in favour of PW-1 is Ex. PW-1/3. iv. Legal proceedings certificate for TM No.2202717 in Class 42 for wordmark "Lenskart" is Ex. PW-1/4.
v. Legal proceedings certificate for TM No.2750651 in Class 44 for wordmark "Lenskart" is Ex. PW-1/5.
vi. Legal proceedings certificate for TM No.4321015 in Class 35 for wordmark "Lenskart.com" is Ex. PW-1/6. vii. Legal proceedings certificate for TM No.4321013 in Class 44 for wordmark "Lenskart.com" is Ex. PW-1/7. viii. Legal proceedings certificate for TM No.4321014 in Class 9 for wordmark "Lenskart.com" is Ex. PW-1/8.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 25 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:02:06 +0530 ix. Copyright Certificate is Ex. PW-1/9.
x. Franchise Agreement is Ex. PW-1/10.
xi. Mails and communications are Ex. PW-1/11 (Collectively).
xii. Termination notice dated 12.02.24 is Ex. PW-1/12.
xiii. Complaint received from customer with invoice is Ex. PW-1/13.
xiv. Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW-1/14.
Affidavit in terms of order XI Rule 6 CPC as applicable to the Commercial Courts Act is Ex. PW-1/15.
10. On 04.10.2024, PW-1 was discharged.
11. Plaintiff examined PW-2 Shri Rahul Sharma on 07.02.2025. He presented his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-2/A. He relied upon the following documents: -
i. Photographs of the outlet using the infringing mark on 28.02.2024 are Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly.) ii. Invoice with payment proof is Ex. PW-2/3 (Colly).
iii. Photographs of the outlet using the infringing mark on 10.04.2024 are Ex. PW-2/4 (Colly.) iv. Invoice with payment proof is Ex. PW-2/5 (Colly).
v. Certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act is Ex. PW-2/6.
On 07.02.2025 PW-2 was discharged and vide separate statement of learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Evidence was closed.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 26 of 36 NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:02:13 +0530 DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE
12. Since the Defendants were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 26.04.2024, therefore, the matter was not listed for Defendants' Evidence and the matter was listed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
13. I have heard the submissions of learned Counsel for Plaintiff and have carefully gone through the record.
14. The Plaintiff had filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w section 151 CPC seeking an order of ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants No.1 and 2 as also through their proprietor/partners, assigns-in- business, dealers, distributors, agents, stockists and all other persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in 'Eye wear, sunglasses, contact lenses, prescription lenses, and other allied & cognate /associated goods' under the infringing marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff at their present premises or at any other place and / or from using any other similar/deceptively similar trade mark thereto in respect of identical/similar/allied & cognate goods/services/business, which may constitute infringement of proprietory rights of the Plaintiff with respect to Plaintiff's prior used, reputed and well-recognized trade mark/ trade name 'LENSKART'. As observed above, the said application was NEERA CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 27 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:02:20 +0530 allowed in favour of the Plaintiff vide order dated 14.03.2024. On the same day, learned Counsel for Plaintiff had stated that he would consider dropping Defendant no.2 from the array of the parties if he took the stand that he was not involved in violation of the IPR of the Plaintiff.
15. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that the Plaintiff is the registered owner of the trademark 'LENSKART' and the formative/comprising trademarks mentioned in Para 2 (f) of this judgment. Plaintiff is also the registered owner of the copyright/label LENSKART under the copyright registration number A-114479/2015. Plaintiff has filed the relevant documents as Ex, PW-1/4 to Ex. PW-1/10. It was also argued on behalf of Plaintiff that Defendant no. 1 had entered into a Franchisee Agreement with the Plaintiff as detailed in the plaint which was terminated vide e-mail dated 12.02.2024 which has been tendered as a part of Ex. PW-1/11 (Colly) at page 111 of the paper-book. He invited attention to Clause 12 of the Franchisee Agreement. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that under the said Clause 12, the Defendants could not carry out a competing business for a period of one year from the date of termination of the Franchisee Agreement and under Clause 19, the Defendants were required to immediately stop using the intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff. He argued that despite the termination and blocking of POS, the Defendants continued to sell the products in the name of the trademark of the Plaintiff by issuing manual vouchers, Ex. PW-2/3. Representative of the Plaintiff also visited the store to verify the facts and he found that the Defendants are still using the signage and other intellectual property rights of the Plaintiff. Learned NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 28 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:02:26 +0530 Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the record of the case shows that that the Defendants had indulged in infringement of trademarks as well as in the tort of passing of, as well as in infringing the Plaintiff's copyright. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff also submitted that the Defendants deliberately avoided the suit proceedings so as to conceal the exact scale of infringement which had been committed and so as to avoid rendering the accounts. He also submitted that Defendants were seeking to ride over the goodwill of the Plaintiffs and the conduct of the Defendants amounted to piracy. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought in the suit and that the Plaintiff would also be entitled to penal damages.
16. I have considered the submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff and I have perused the record.
17. Case of the Plaintiff is based on Clauses 12 and 19 of Franchisee Agreement, Ex. PW-1/10. Clause 12 of the Franchisee Agreement, Ex. PW-1/10 states :
"12.2 The restriction contained in the preceding clause shall continue to apply during the Term and for a period of 1 (one) year after the termination of the Agreement at the Location from the which the licensed business was being carried by the Franchisee and extend upto a radius of 5 (five) kilometers from the Location. That the restriction for carrying on any competing business or activity within an area of 5 (five) kilometers is reasonable considering the goodwill and reputation of the Franchisor and its products on which the Franchisee has no right to trade upon.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 29 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:02:32 +0530 12.5 The Franchisee hereby agree and undertake that during the subsistence of this Agreement, and for a period of 1 (one) year thereafter, Franchisee shall not directly or indirectly, induce or attempt in any manner to induce any employees of a Party to cease their employment relationship with such Party.
12.6 The Franchisee shall not during the term of this Agreement and for a period of 1 (one) year thereafter, approach or entertain the Franchisor or Franchisor's existing or prospective vendors, customers, business partners, franchisees, Affiliates, associates, directly or indirectly for any kind of employment opportunities in any eyewear related business or do any act which will result in loss of revenue to the Franchisor or results in shift of business from Franchisor to any other company/ organization/ entity that competes with the business of the Franchisor.
12.7 The franchisee shall not during this agreement and for a period of 1 (one) year following termination hereof, wholesale the Authorised Products to any person including any of its Affiliates or associates.
12.9 In the event of breach of the aforesaid, the Franchisee shall pay to the Franchisor an amount of INR 5,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Five Lakhs only) as liquidated damages, it being understood that such amount constitutes a genuine pre-estimate of the damage that would be suffered by the Franchisor as a result of such breach and the Franchisee hereby unconditionally agrees that the amount of liquidated damages does not constitute a penalty of any nature whatsoever."
18. Clause 19 of the Franchise agreement states:-
"19.2 Upon the termination or expiration of this agreement all rights granted to the Franchisor hereunder shall immediately terminate and the license shall stand revoked.
19.3 Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, the Franchisee undertakes:
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 30 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:02:38 +0530
(i) to cease forthwith to make use of the Intellectual Property and to return to / deposit with the Franchisor all Intellectual Property (in whatever form or medium stored, displayed, represented including all copies of the Development Standards and Specifications, Operational Standards and Specifications and Brand Use and Marketing Policy, NPS Policy all stationery, documents, carry bags, promotional materials, signs and other items related to the Authorised Products / Authorised Outlet), without retaining the same in any form or any copies thereof.
(ii) to pay to the Franchisor any and all sums of money due for the period up to termination without any right of deduction or set-off; and
(iii) to return to the Franchisor all its Confidential Information without retaining the same in any form or any copies thereof;
(iv) to cease to operate the Authorized Outlet and desist from directly or indirectly, representing or holding itself out as a Franchisee of the Trade Mark.
The Franchisor shall have the right to enter upon the premises of the Franchisee to ensure that such obligations of the Franchisee are complied with."
19. The Franchisee Agreement, Ex. PW-1/10, specifically provides that the parties to the Agreement are the PERSON LISTED IN PART B OF THE SCHEDULE A, and it only mentions name of Defendant no. 1 as proprietor and not of Defendant no. 2. Mere mentioning of name of Defendant no. 2 in Schedule F does not make him party to the Franchisee Agreement as his name has only been mentioned as Address of NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 31 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:02:45 +0530 Franchisee for Notices. Defendant no.2 is therefore not bound by any terms and conditions of Franchisee Agreement, Ex. PW-1/10. Therefore, Plaintiff has been unable to prove that any relief is made out against the Defendant no. 2 and therefore no relief can be granted against Defendant no. 2. The suit is therefore dismissed against Defendant no. 2 and the interim order dated 14.03.2024 which was made absolute vide order dated 28.02.2025 shall be applicable only to Defendant No.1 and the order dated 28.02.2025 is modified accordingly.
20. The Defendant no.1 despite being served did not appear before this Court even for once. The Defendant no.1 did not appear despite being served with copy of order dated 14.07.2024 whereby the application filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was allowed ex parte. When the application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A was filed, again notice was issued to the Defendant no.1, but he did not appear. The Defendant no.1 has been wilfully and deliberately violating the interim order dated 14.03.2024 and fine of Rs.2,00,000/- was also imposed on the Defendants. It is quite clear from the conduct of Defendant no.1 that he had been avoiding the court proceedings. The Defendant no.1 was required to file the Written Statement but the same was not filed. The registration of the Plaintiff's trademarks and copyright is not disputed and has been proved by PW-1.
21. The suit of the Plaintiff is based upon the documents which are placed on record as Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW-1/15 and Ex. PW-2/2 to Ex. PW-2/6. Suit is within limitation. The testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 NEERA CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 32 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:02:50 +0530 have been duly corroborated by the documents placed on record. There is no occasion to doubt the veracity of the said witnesses and for that matter, the authenticity of testimony led by them. The testimony has gone absolutely unrebutted and unchallenged as both Defendants neither appeared nor led their defence. This court finds no reason to disbelieve the on-oath testimony of the witnesses of the Plaintiff coupled with the relevant documents. Hence, the Plaintiff has successfully proved its case by preponderance of probability against Defendant no.1.
22. Clearly, this is a case of piracy and unfair use by the Defendant no.1 of the impugned trademark and copyright of the Plaintiff. The Defendant no.1 has clearly indulged in infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks as well as has committed the tort of passing off. As such, I find that the Plaintiff would be entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in prayer of the plaint. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendant no.1 for permanent injunction:-
a. restraining the Defendant no.1, its proprietor/partners, assigns-in- business, dealers, distributors, agents, stockists and all other persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in 'Eye wear, sunglasses, contact lenses, prescription lenses, and other allied & cognate /associated goods' under the infringing marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff at its present premises or at any other place and / or from using any other similar/deceptively similar trade mark thereto in respect of NEERA CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 33 of 36 BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:02:56 +0530 identical/similar/allied & cognate goods/services/business, which may constitute infringement of proprietary rights of the Plaintiff with respect to Plaintiff's prior used, reputed and well-recognized trade mark/ trade name 'LENSKART'.
b. restraining the Defendant no. 1, its assigns-in-business, dealers, distributors, agents and all other persons acting for and on its behalf from using the infringing marks/ name/ logo of the Plaintiff and/or any other similar/deceptively similar trademark in respect of identical/similar/allied & goods/services/business which may amount to infringement of registered trademarks; and c. restraining the Defendant no.1, its proprietor / partners, assigns-in business, dealers, distributors, agents, stockists and all other persons acting on its behalf from using the infringing artistic work/label/packing wrapper as complained of' which may amount to infringement of copyright of the Plaintiff with respect to the Plaintiff's said artistic, registered, prior used and distinctive art- work/label "LENSKART";
d. restraining the Defendant no.1, its proprietor / partners, assigns-in-
business, dealers, distributors, agents, stockists and all other persons acting on its behalf from passing off its goods/services/business as those of the Plaintiff in any manner.
NEERA BHARIHOKE Digitally signed by NEERA CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 34 of 36 BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:03:02 +0530
23. An order is also passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against Defendant No.1 for destruction of all the blocks, dies, finished goods, packing box/cartons wrappers, packing material, bills, advertisement material, signage, display boards, stationery and other incriminating material of the Defendant No.1 bearing the infringing trademark/ trade name "LENSKART" & said infringing copyright/artwork "LENSKART";
24. The Plaintiff has also claimed damages in its favour and against the Defendants. The suit stands dismissed against Defendant no. 2 in view of reasons stated in Para no.19. Defendant no. 1 appears to have deliberately avoided the suit proceedings so as to avoid giving any accounts as to the impugned products and the sales made. Defendant no.1 cannot be permitted to reap the benefit of his own wrong. The case of the Plaintiff has gone unrebutted. As such, the present case is a fit case for awarding penal damages against Defendant no. 1.
25. By perusing the evidence and in the facts and circumstances of the case, penal damages of Rs.10 Lacs are awarded in favour of Plaintiff to be recovered from Defendant No.1.
26. Defendant No.1 is directed to pay to Plaintiff the cost of the suit which shall include pleader's fee and the other costs on the scale provided under section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure as substituted by Commercial Courts Act. If the payment is not made within thirty days, the cost shall also carry simple interest @ 6% per annum.
NEERA BHARIHOKE CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 35 of 36 Digitally signed by NEERA BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17 17:03:07 +0530
27. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open NEERA by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
BHARIHOKE Date: 2025.03.17
Court on 17.03.2025 17:03:14 +0530
(Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
17.03.2025
Certified that this judgment contains 36 pages and each page bears my signatures.
NEERA
BHARIHOKE (Dr. Neera Bharihoke)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-06
Digitally signed
by NEERA
BHARIHOKE
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi
Date: 2025.03.17
17:03:19 +0530
17.03.2025
CS (COMM) 168/24 Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satyajeet Singh & Anr. Page 36 of 36