Delhi District Court
Rado Uhren Ag And Ors vs Sandeep Gogia And Ors on 5 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Sh. ANURAG SAIN,
DISTRICT JUDGE, (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
CS COMM 59/2019
In the matter of:
Rado Uhren AG
Bielstrasse 45, Lengnau,
Switzerland .... Plaintiff no.1
Tissot SA (Tissot AG) (Tissot Ltd.)
Chemin des Tourelles 17,
Le Locle, Switzerland .... Plaintiff no.2
Omega SA (Omega AG) (Omega Ltd.)
Jakob-Stampfli-Strasse 96,
2502, Biel/Benne, Switzerland .....Plaintiff no.3.
Compagnie des Montres Longines,
Francillon SA (Longines Watch Co., Francillon Ltd.)
2610, St. Imier, Switzerland .....Plaintiff no.4.
Vs.
Mr. Sandeep Gogia,
Trading as M/s Gogia Properties.
2691, Naya Bazaar, Delhi-110006
www.beshopaholic.com
email iD: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] ...Defendant no.1A
ASHOK KUMAR 1
#H-22A, Shah Industrial Estate
Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.1 of 21
CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019
Andheri (West), Mumbai-400058
a. www.premiumstuff.in/
Email IL: [email protected]
b. www.brandstop.in/
Email ID: [email protected]
c. http:/proclassy.in/
Email ID: [email protected]
d. http://timepeeks.in/
Email ID: [email protected]
e. http:/shoponghub.com/
Email ID: [email protected]
f. http://watchfesta.in/
Email ID: support @watchfesta.in
g.www.shpkartzone.com/
email ID : [email protected]
h. www.stylevision.in/
Email ID: [email protected] ...Defendant no.1B
ASHOK KUMAR 2
55/6, Kalyani Nagar,
Pune, Maharashtra - 411014
http://clubluxury.in
Email ID: [email protected] ...Defendant no.1C
ASHOK KUMAR 3
St Martins Rd, Santosh Nagar, Bandra West,
Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400050.
http://www.watchodaddy.in
Mobile No: +91 - 9545169868 ...Defendant no.1D
ASHOK KUMAR 4
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
http://www.watchokart.in
http://www.watchokart.com
Mobile No: +91-9695037826 ...Defendant no.1E
ASHOK KUMAR 5
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
https://allindiawatches.in ...Defendant no.1F
Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.2 of 21
CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019
ASHOK KUMAR 6
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
Email ID: [email protected]
Mobile No: +91-9560655569,
Mobile No: +91-9354278890, ...Defendant no.1G
ASHOK KUMAR 7
Mumbai (COMPLETE ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN)
www.999watches.in
Email ID: help@,999watches.in,
service@,999watches.in
Mobile No. +91-9867140315
+91-9082582459 ...Defendant no.1H
ASHOK KUMAR 8
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
https://boldwish.in/
Email ID: [email protected]
Mobile No: +91-7735040453 ...Defendant no.1I
ASHOK KUMAR 9
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
https://replicastoreindia.com
Email ID: [email protected]
Mobile No: +91 - 9833686707 ...Defendant no.1J
ASHOK KUMAR 10
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
https://swagstreet.in
Mobile No: +91 - 8826249351 ...Defendant no.1K
ASHOK KUMAR 11
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
http://dealmrprize.com/
Email ID: [email protected]
Mobile No: +91 - 9930410731 ...Defendant no.1L
ASHOK KUMAR 12
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
https://watchesinindia.in/
https://lelowatches.in/
Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.3 of 21
CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019
Email ID: [email protected],
[email protected]
Mobile No: +91 - 9833459003,
+91 - 7999036548,
+91 - 8454011312 ...Defendant no.1M
ASHOK KUMAR 13
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
http://jazzcollection.co.in/
Email ID: [email protected]
Mobile No: +91 - 8779657031 ...Defendant no.1N
ASHOK KUMAR 14
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
http://brandedmenswatches.com/
Email ID: [email protected]
Mobile No: +91 - 9930418407 ...Defendant no.1O
ASHOK KUMAR 15
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
http://www.watchoindia.in
Mobile No: +91 - 8291636993 ...Defendant no.1P
ASHOK KUMAR 16
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
https://www.swissreplicawatchesinindia.com/
email ID: [email protected]
Mobile No: +91 - 9930449637 ...Defendant no.1Q
ASHOK KUMAR 17
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
https://www.watchotime.com/
Email ID: [email protected]
Mobile No: +91 - 9833547334 ...Defendant no.1R
ASHOK KUMAR 18
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
https://stylemeupp.com/
Email ID: [email protected]
Mobile No: +91 - 8879860248 ...Defendant no.1S
Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.4 of 21
CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019
ASHOK KUMAR 19
ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN
http://ultimatefashionhub.com/
Mobile No: +91 - 9993062628 ...Defendant no.1T
ASHOK KUMAR 20
Mumbai (COMPLETE ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN)
https://www.replicastuff.com/
Email ID: [email protected],
[email protected]
Mobile No: + 91-7506267992 ...Defendant no.1U
ASHOK KUMAR 21
Mumbai (COMPLETE ADDRESS-HIDDEN/UNKNOWN)
https://www.7awatches.com
Mobile No:+9769215793 ...Defendant no.1V
THE DEPARTMENT OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS [DOT]
Ministry of Communications
Government of India
Sanchar Bahawan 20, Ashoka Road,
New Delhi-110001 ... Defendant no.2.
Ministry of Electronics and Information
Technology (MeitY)
Through the division of Cyber Laws & E-Security
Government of India
Electronics Niketan, 6, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi - 110003 ....Defendant no.3
Date of institution of the case : 08.03.2019
Date on which judgment was reserved : 19.10.2024
Date of pronouncement of the judgment : 05.11.2024
Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.5 of 21
CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019
Appearance: Sh.Amit Chanchal Jha, Advocate for plaintiff.
None for defendants. (defendants are ex-parte).
Judgment
1.Plaintiffs have filed the present suit for permanent injunction based on infringement of trademark and copy right and also seeking reliefs of passing off; delivery up and rendition of accounts etc.
2. The plaintiffs are engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and distribution of finished watches, jewellery, watch movements and related/cognate goods. It is averred that plaintiff no.1 is the registered proprietor of the Trademark/Label RADO, which was adopted, coined and is being continuously used by the plaintiff since the year 1917. It is averred that trademark/Label RADO is duly registered in India under various classes, details of which are mentioned in para 6 of the plaint.
3. It is averred that trademark TISSOT was coined and adopted in the name of its founder Charles-Felicien TISSOT and is being continuously used by the plaintiff no.2 since the year 1853 through its proprietors and predecessors. It is averred that trademark/Label TISSOT is duly registered in India under various classes, details of which are mentioned in para 9 of the plaint.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff no.3 is having its office at Switzerland and is the registered proprietor of Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.6 of 21 CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019 trademark/Label OMEGA, which was founded in the year 1903 by Louis Brandt. It is averred that trademark/Label OMEGA is duly registered in India under various classes, details of which are mentioned in para 12 of the plaint.
5. It is averred that plaintiff no.4 is the registered proprietor of trademark/label LONGINES, which was coined and adopted by its founder Auguste Agassiz in the year 1832. Trademark registration details of LONGINES in India are provided in para 15 of the plaint.
6. It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs have been honestly and bonafidely, continuously, commercially, openly, exclusively and to the exclusion of others, uninterruptedly and in course of trade and as a proprietor thereof using its said trade mark in relation to its said goods and business and carrying on its said goods and business there under and has built up a worldwide and globally valuable trade, goodwill and reputation thereunder and acquired proprietary rights therein. Plaintiff are also carrying on its business activities under the said trademarks on the internet through various websites i.e. www.rado.com; www.omegawatches.com; www.tissotwatches.com; www.longiness.com.
7. It is averred that the Copyrights involved in the plaintiffs' said trademarks are original artistic works within the meaning of Copyright Act and the plaintiffs are the owner and proprietor thereof. The plaintiffs have been dealing with the said Copyrights in the course of trade in relation to its said goods and Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.7 of 21 CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019 business inter-alia within the meaning of Section 14 of the Copyright Act. It is also averred that the trademarks of the plaintiffs are enforceable within the ambit of Copyright Act 2957 as well as by virtue of India's membership to the Berne Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention and the International Copyright Order 1991. The extracts from the history of plaintiff no.1 to 4 are mentioned in para 19 of the plaint.
8. It is averred that plaintiffs have built up a globally valuable trade under its said trademarks and conducted handsome business there under running into millions of Dollars worldwide.
9. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that they have regularly and continuously been promoting their said trademarks and the goods and business there under through extensive advertisements, publicities, promotions and marketing & marketing research and the Plaintiffs have been spending enormous amounts of moneys, efforts, and time thereon and have been doing so through various means and modes including through the visual, print, electronic media, in leading newspapers, trade literature, magazines, word of mouth, over the internet, etc. and all of which has tremendous and circulation world over, including in India.
10. It is averred that the plaintiff's said Trademarks as well as the goods and businesses there under have a very strong presence in India. Plaintiffs' said goods and business are known, recognized, demanded, sold and traded world over, including in Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.8 of 21 CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019 India, with reference to their said Trademarks and the trademarks of the plaintiffs are well known within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Act.
11. It is averred that defendant no.1A to 1V are engaged in manufacturing, marketing, soliciting and trading of counterfeit watches, clocks, wall clocks, horological and other chronometric instruments and allied and cognate products on their websites and are making them available for sale across India including within the jurisdiction of this court. The Defendant No. IA to IV are explicitly mentioning on the websites that they are dealing in "replica", true copy", "first copy", "A + + copies ", etc of the Plaintiff's goods and business and they are acting in collusion and connivance with each other and the plaintiffs are not aware of the exact relationship, nexus and constitution fo the defendants.
12. It is averred that defendant no.1A is operating a website wwwbeshopatholic.com, wherein the said defendant is showcasting RADO, TISSOT, OMEGA & LONGINES marked products and explicitly claiming to sell counterfeit products on the website and the said website is owned and operated by Sandeep Gogia and created the same on 06.07.2017.
13. It is also averred that defendants no.1B to IV have been shown as Ashok Kumar 1 to 21, following the John Deo orders, as they are only known by their websites along with some addresses/email IDs.
14. The list of websites of defendant no.1 A-IV are shows as under:
Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.9 of 21 CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019 Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.10 of 21 CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019
15. It is averred that as mentioned in the above table the various Domain name registrars and Web Hosting service Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.11 of 21 CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019 providers are providing support services to defendants no.1A to IV's websites in operating/conducting sale of counterfeit products under the Plaintiff's trademarks/labels.
16. It is the case of the plaintiff that Department of Telecommunications has been arrayed as defendant no.2, who is having power and jurisdiction to block the listings/URL (s)/web pages by directing all Internet Services Providers (ISPs) operating in India to block the listings/URL(s) as listed in India to block the listings/URL(s). It is averred that Ministry of Electronics and Technology (MeitY) is impleaded as defendant no.3 through its various divisions including the division of Cyber Laws and E-Security is responsible for the implementation of administration over the Cyber Laws of the Country and this ministry has the jurisdiction and authority to order blocking of websites and webpages found to be disseminating illegal content.
17. It is the case of the plaintiff is that the Defendants No. 1A to 1V have started selling "replica, mirror quality replica products, first copy watches" using the impugned Trademarks/Labels "RADO, TISSOT, OMEGA, & LONGINES"
in relation to their impugned goods and businesses and on their respective websites are showing the goods under the Trademarks/Labels "RADO, TISSOT, OMEGA & LONGINES"
as "replica, Mirror quality, Replica product, first copy, true copy"
and they are using the Plaintiffs said Trademark without the leave and license of the Plaintiffs and they have no right to use it in any manner in relation to its impugned goods and business or for any other specification of goods and business whatsoever Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.12 of 21 CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019 being in violation of the plaintiff's rights therein. It is averred that due to unauthorized use of trademark by defendants, plaintiffs are being harmed in their reputation and business and that defendants have been encashing upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs, the claim has been brought.
18. It is averred that defendants' unauthorized use of plaintiff's trademark and logo by its wrongful conduct has significantly injured the plaintiff's interest and goodwill in the plaintiffs trade name. It is also averred that acts of the defendants have caused public confusion as to the source of affiliation of its products and also injure the plaintiff's reputation.
19. Along with the suit, plaintiff filed two applications under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC After hearing the arguments, vide order dated 18.03.2019, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, finding the case of the plaintiff prima facie strong on merits the court ordered as under:
"Hence, the defendants No.1A to 1V by itself, their individual proprietors/partners, agents, representatives, distributors, agents etc or any person claiming under or through them are restrained from using, selling, manufacturing, marketing, intention to sell/solicit, exporting, importing, displaying, advertising by visual, audio, print mode or by any other mode or manner dealing in or selling/soliciting through online websites (as mentioned in Memo of Parties) and/or online platform or through social medias or in any manner using the impugned counterfeit goods under trademarks/labels RADO, TISSOT, OMEGA & Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.13 of 21 CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019 LONGINES or any other word/mark which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar word/mark to the plaintiff's said trademarks/labels in relation to their impugned goods and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to infringement/passing off/violation of plaintiffs right and infringement of plaintiffs' copyright in RADO, TISSOT, OMEGA & LONGINES till next date of hearing. The Domain Name Registrars and Web Hosting Service Providers of the defendant No.1A to IV's websites are directed to withdraw support and block/restrain the websites of defendants no. 1A to IV from conducting any trademark infringing and counterfeiting activity under the plaintiffs' trademarks RADO, TISSOT, OMEGA & LONGINES. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to secure blocking of the Web Pages/URL (s)/Listings of the impugned websites of defendant No.1A to 1V and URLs (as listed in Schedule A) in respect of the impugned goods bearing impugned trademarks/labels viz. RADO, TISSOT, OMEGA & LONGINES or any other word/mark/trademark/label which may be identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademarks/label/trade name till next date of hearing."
20. Summons were sent to the defendants. Defendants no.1(A) and defendant no.2 were served and put in their appearance. Defendant no.1 has also filed his written statement. Thereafter the defendants stopped appearing and thus, due to Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.14 of 21 CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019 non-appearance the defendants were proceeded exparte vide order dated 17.08.2022.
21. Thereafter, matter was posted for arguments on application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 and vide order dated 22.08.2023, the exparte order dated 18.03.2019 was made absolute till the disposal of the present matter and application stands disposed off. Thereafter, matter was posted for exparte evidence.
22. In order to prove its case, plaintiff examined Sh.Anand Kumar Arya, AR of the plaintiff as PW-1. He tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A in evidence and proved the following documents:
Sl. Documents Exhibit/Mark No. number
1. Representation and photographs of Ex.PW1/1 (colly) products under the Trade Marks/Labels of the plaintiffs.
2 Status and publication in Trade Ex.PW1/2 (colly) Marks Journal of the plaintiff's registered Trademarks/ Labels.
3 Snapshots of the Defendant no.1A Ex.PW1/3 (colly)
-IV's websites on which
counterfeit the products of RADO,
TISSOT, OMEGA & LONGINES
are being sold.
4 Snapshots of the Defendant no.1A Ex.PW1/4 (colly)
-IV's websites wherein the said
defendants are claiming to sell
'replica', 'true copy', 'mirror
copy', etc products of RADO,
Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.15 of 21
CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019
TISSOT, OMEGA &
LONGINES.
5 List of URLs of the Defendant Ex.PW1/5 (colly)
No.1A - IV counterfeit wherein
products of RADO, TISSOT,
OMEGA & LONGINES are being
sold and advertised. Schedule -A.
6 Whois Reports providing details Ex.PW1/6 (colly)
of the Registrar with respect to
Defendant No.1A to IV websites.
7 Whoishostingthis Reports Ex.PW1/7 (colly)
providing details of the Web
Hosting Service Provider with
respect to Defendant No.1A -IV
websites.
8 Advertisement and Promotional Ex.PW1/8 (colly)
materials and related documents of
the Plaintiffs.
9 Documents showing products of Ex.PW1/9 (colly)
plaintiffs under its Trademarks/
Labels being sold within the
territorial jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble court.
10 Financial Statements of 2017 of Ex.PW1/10 (colly)
the Swatch Group Ltd. showing
the link between the plaintiffs.
11 Copy of the authorization in Ex.PW1/11
favour of Surbhi Bansal.
12 Copy of the authorization in Ex.PW1/12
favour of Anand Arya.
13 Affidavit U/s 65-B Indian Ex.PW1/B
Evidence Act/ Order XI Rule 6 (3)
of CPC as amended by
Commercial Courts Act, 2015
bearing signatures at points C and
D with regard to Ex.PW1/1 (colly)
to Ex.PW1/10 (colly).
Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.16 of 21
CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019
23. I have heard Ld. Counsel Sh. Amit Chanchal Jha for the plaintiffs and perused the record and also given due consideration to the pleadings of the parties, the legal issues and the facts and circumstances of the case and the record.
24. Ld. counsel submitted that adoption and use of the trademark by the defendants in relation to the counterfeit products amounts to infringement of registered trademark. The purchasing public is bound to assume some sort of association or connection between the defendant's product and the plaintiffs thereby leading to confusion as to the source of origin of the defendant's goods and passing off of the defendants' goods as those of the plaintiffs. It is further submitted that defendants have used the plaintiff's trademark in relation to their counterfeit goods with the view to trade their business on the reputation and goodwill enjoyed by the plaintiff. The use of the same suit trademark alongwith copying of various styles of plaintiff are a sign of defendant's attempts at deception. Thus, it is prayed that the decree be passed in favour of plaintiff against the defendants with compensatory as well as punitive damages.
25. In support of their submissions, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon following judgments:
1. UTV Software Communication Ltd. & Ors. Vs. 133x to & Ors, CS (Comm) No.724/2017, decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 10.03.2019.
Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.17 of 21 CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019
2. Flipkart Internet Private Limited Vs. www.flipkartwinners.com & Ors. CS (cOMM) No.1177/2018, decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 26.02.2019.
26. In the present suit, the defendants no.1B to IV are the certain identifiable websites that are unauthorizedly publishing and communicating the Plaintiffs' copyrighted works. John Doe Defendants are unknown parties engaged in the unauthorized communication of the plaintiffs' copyrighted works and include the registrants of the defendant-websites, uploaders, creators of the redirect / mirror / alphanumeric websites etc. ISPs that provide internet access, enabling users to visit any website online, including the defendant-websites. The Government Department/Agency, namely Department of Telecommunication and Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology have been impleaded to assist in notifying ISPs to disable access to defendant-websites within India and implementing the orders passed by this Court. It is averred that the ISPs and the Government Agencies are not involved in committing any infringement but have been impleaded for the purpose of evolving an effective and balanced relief that adequately redresses the plaintiffs' concerns and also protects the public interest, if any. Though the defendant no.1 filed his written statement, but no affidavit of admission and denial of documents or statement of truth was annexed with the written statement. Thus, the written statement so filed by the defendant is non-est document.
Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.18 of 21 CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019
27. A perusal of the unrebutted testimony of PW-1 and the documents placed and exhibited on record reveals that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the trademarks Rado, Tissot, Omega and Longines and is engaged in the business of manufacture, sale and distribution of finished watches, jewellery, watch movements and related/cognate goods. The plaintiffs have given a history of innovation and expansion of their trade marks. Plaintiffs have applied for and obtained various trademark registrations pertaining to their mark/label as detailed in the plaint. It has been using the same continuously and uninterruptedly in relation to its goods and business and acquired enormous amount of goodwill and reputation. The documents Ex.PW-1/2 show that plaintiffs are the registered owner of the trademarks which are well known trademarks. It incurs huge expenditure on promotion of its goods. PW-1 proved on record snapshots of defendant no.1A to IV's website on which counterfeit products of RADO, TISSOT, OMEGA & LONGINES as Ex.PW-1/3 and the snapshot wherein the said defendants are claiming to sell "replica, true copy, mirror copy etc. as Ex.PW-1/4. It has also been proved on record whois report (Ex.PW-1/4) and whoishostingthis report (Ex.PW-1/5) to provide the details of registrar with respect to the websites of defendants no. 1A to 1V and also web hosting service provider with respect to the websites. PW-1 also proved on record advertisement and promotional material and related documents of the plaintiff as Ex.PW-1/6.
Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.19 of 21 CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019
28. Testimony of PW-1 and the documents reveal that plaintiffs never authorized anyone to manufacture/trade goods using the said mark/tradename.
29. On appreciation of evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that defendants have adopted the trademarks used by the plaintiffs and that there is a high degree of similarity and resembles which can very easily create confusion in the minds of members of the general public. The plaintiffs being the holder of a registered trademark are entitled to protection against their infringement and the relief claimed. I am of the view that plaintiffs have proved their case and are entitled to an equitable relief of permanent injunction. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed against defendants no.1A to 1V.
30. Keeping in view the aforesaid findings, a decree of permanent injunction is passed restraining the defendant- websites (as mentioned in the chart in paragraph no. 14 of this judgment) their owners, partners, proprietors, officers, servants, employees, and all others in capacity of principal or agent acting for and on their behalf, or anyone claiming through, by or under it, from, in any manner hosting, streaming, reproducing, distributing, making available to the public and/or communicating to the public, or facilitating the same, on their websites, through the internet in any manner whatsoever, any cinematograph work/content/programme/show in relation to which plaintiffs have copyright. A decree is also passed directing the ISPs to block access to the said defendant-websites. The Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.20 of 21 CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019 Department of Telecommunications (DOT) and Ministry of Electronics and Information and Technology (MEITY) are directed to issue a notification calling upon the various internet and telecom service providers registered under it to block access to the said defendant-websites. The plaintiffs are permitted to implead the mirror/redirect/alphanumeric websites under Order I Rule 10 CPC in the event they merely provide new means of accessing the same primary infringing websites that have been injuncted. Cost is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1A to 1V to the extent of Court fee and Advocate's fee as per rules. Advocate's Fee certificate be filed by the plaintiff within 10 days failing which notional fee of Rs.10,000/- be allowed in the decree sheet.
31. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
32. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in the open Court (Anurag Sain)
on this 5th November 2024 District Judge
(Commercial Courts)-01
New Delhi District,
Patiala House Courts
New Delhi
Rado Uhren AG Vs. Mr. Sandeep Gogia Page no.21 of 21
CS (COMM) NO. 59/2019