Delhi District Court
Also At vs M/S Crystal Furniture Industries on 1 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. VINEETA GOYAL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
JUDGE 01, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW
DELHI
TM No. 373/13
Unique ID no. 02403C0160942013
M/s Inter IKEA Systems BV
Olof Palmestraat 2
2616 Delft
Netherlands
Also at :
C/o M/s Ikea Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
C16, C Block Market,
Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi - 110 057. ... Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Crystal Furniture Industries
No. 3, Ground Floor, Umiya Chamber,
Darodkar Square, Central Avenue,
Nagpur
Indiamart Intermesh Limited
E5, Second Floor,
Opp. Andhra Bank, (decreed vide order dt. 01.12.14)
Kalkaji, New Delhi - 110 019
... Defendants
Suit presented On : 11.11.2013
Arguments Concluded On : 29.05.2015
Judgment Pronounced On : 01.06.2015
TM No. 373/13
Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 1 of 17
Appearance :
Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Sh. Dharmender Tyagi, counsel for defendant no. 1.
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, delivery up, damages etc. 1.1. Facts as culled out from plaint are that plaintiff stated to be a company incorporated under the laws of Netherlands is worldwide owner of IKEA Trademarks under which wide range goods and services sold such as furniture, accessories, bathrooms and kitchen fitting, home and office furnishing products, stationery including paper and paper articles, tools and implements falling in classes 2, 8, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 39, 41 and 42 (herein referred as the said goods and business) are being sold.
1.2. The plaintiff claims to be proprietor of internationally renowned trademark IKEA (word per se, stylized , as a device, in Hindi and local languages) as also of their trade name M/s Inter IKEA Systems BV of which the word / mark IKEA forms a significant, material and a key constituent (herein referred as said trademark / trade name). The art works involved in the various stylized and device formats of the said trademark has been created over a period of time and the plaintiff owns the copyright therein for being original art works.
1.3. According to the assertions, plaintiff, is the founder of trademark as TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 2 of 17 it has coined, conceived and adopted the said trade mark IKEA in about the year 1943. Ever since then the plaintiff has been honestly & commercially using the said trademark / trade name in relation to its said goods and business in the course of trade. The said trademark has built up a globally valuable and enduring trade, goodwill and reputation. IKEA is a rare coined and unique word having all the trappings of an invented mark and is an inherently strong mark. The plaintiff initially started using said trademark / trade name in relation to pens, wallets, picture frame, table runners, watches, jewellery and nylon stocking etc. but subsequently use was expanded to furniture in about the year 1947. The goods and business under the said trademark / trade name are guaranteed and sold in over 75 countries of the world and across the continents and regions including India. It is claimed that the plaintiff enjoys transborder reputation because the goods of the plaintiff are sold and traded through its extensive marketing network of retail, internet, ecommerce and its affiliates/ subsidiaries. The trademark IKEA (word or stylized or design or label or device or in Hindi) is duly registered / pending registration in India under the Trade Marks Act 1999 as per details given in para 8 of the plaint. The registrations of the trade name/ trademark are regular, renewed, and valid upto date. It is further averred that the pending applications are likely to be allowed as per law. 1.4. The plaintiff avers that the sales of IKEA group for the financial year 2004 was 14.8 billion Euros and for the financial year 2006 was 17.3 billion Euros. The sale has been steadily increasing and the said trademark IKEA stood amongst the top 50 brands in the best global brands 2010.
TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 3 of 17 1.5. The plaintiff asserts that it has been promoting its said trademark / trade name and the goods and business through extensive advertisements, publicities, promotions and marketing and marketing research. It has been spending enormous amount of money, effort, skill and time thereupon. It has been advertising its trade name/ mark through various means and modes including visual and print media, in leading newspapers, trade literature, magazines over the internet etc and all of which have tremendous reach, availability and circulation world over including in India. The plaintiff contends that the purchasing public, trade and industry at large in India and world over identify and distinguish its said goods as high quality products exclusively as that of the plaintiff.
1.6. The plaintiff also asserts that with the advent of ecommerce and growth of internet, in the year 1996, the plaintiff adopted the said trademark IKEA as essential and material part of its domain name viz. www.ikea.com. The said website contains extensive information about the goods and the services rendered and provided by plaintiff under its said trademark / trade name. In fact the website has hundreds of thousands of visits from people looking for information. The plaintiff asserts that it is an international home products company whose franchisees sell ready to assemble furniture such as beds and desks, appliances and home accessories.
1.7. The plaintiff asserts its active compliance with the spirit of law, ethical standards and international norms as a part of corporate social responsibility policy functioning as a built in self regulating mechanism. The goal is to encourage TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 4 of 17 a positive impact through its activities on the environment, consumers, employees, communities, stake holders and all other member of public sphere and claimed that IKEA believe in proactively promoting the business in public interest by encouraging community growth, development and voluntarily eliminating practices that harm the public sphere regardless of legality.
1.8. According to plaintiff, IKEA India is a major regional buying center for the IKEA group specializing in purchases of textiles and fabrics from South Asia comprising India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. India alone accounts for 70% of regional purchases. The plaintiff asserts that in rural India the plaintiff's solar powered lamp lights are path for girl students. In order to encourage rural girls to excel, UNICIEF is partnering with the plaintiff with social initiative to provide these lamps to students. The goal is to promote the rights of every child to be healthy, secure childhood with access to quality education. The plaintiff also asserts that it has actively worked on issue of child labour with a goal to make sure that no child labour is involved in the manufacturing of plaintiff's products. It wants to offer to the customers well designed, functional home furnishing products of good quality and at a lower price, manufactured under acceptable working conditions supplied with a care for the environment. The plaintiff also support that UN convention of rights of the child 1989 with basis requirement to always put the best interest of the child in focus. The plaintiff also asserts, that it, together with UNICEF and WHO has initiated a five year immunization program. The plaintiff's aforesaid IKEA trade mark / trade name enjoys a very strong presence in India. In addition to its trans border reputation, the plaintiff enjoys the actual use of its said trade mark / trade TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 5 of 17 name in India. Its goods and business are being sold and traded through information technology, extensive marketing network including retail, internet, ecommerce and its franchisee.
1.9. The plaintiff states that defendant no. 1 i.e. M/s Crystal Furniture Industries has apparently engaged in the goods and business of office furniture and allied and cognate goods (herein after referred to as impugned goods and business) and defendant no. 2 i.e. Indiamart Intermesh Limited is maintaining website www.indiamart.com which is online B2B market place connecting buyer with suppliers. The defendants have adopted and started using and / or intends to so use in relations its impugned services and business under the trademark IKEA (referred as impugned trademark). The plaintiff contends that the defendant is also using the impugned trade mark IKEA as part of their trade. The impugned trademark copied and imitated by the defendants is same/ similar, identical with and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trade marks / tradename in each and every respect including phonetically, structurally, in its basic idea and in its essential features. The defendant by their impugned adoption and use of impugned trade mark / trade name are violating the plaintiff's said trademarks /trade name and thereby infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark / trade name and passing off and enabling others to pass off their services and business as that on the plaintiff as well as deputing the plaintiff's proprietary rights and goodwill and reputation there in. Any person not knowingly the relationship between the parties to this action is bound to get confused. The plaintiff contends that the defendants actions are motivated purely by malafide intention to trade upon and get benefit from the international reputation TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 6 of 17 and goodwill enjoyed by plaintiff and its products and thereby cause deception on the unwary customer by passing of its business as and for the business of plaintiff. 1.10. Plaintiff further contends that it came to know about activity of defendant no. 1 when it came across the impugned goods under the impugned trademark on website of defendant no. 2 i.e. www.indiamark.com. Being aggrieved, the plaintiff made inquiries in the market and trade and it was informed the defendants had just about in the last week of September 2013 adopted and started using the impugned trademark in relation to their impugned goods. The defendant no. 1 is not only making the retail sales but is also supplying the impugned goods bearing the impugned trademark to various other dealers / retailers in Delhi including New Delhi markets. The defendant no. 2 through its website is offering / selling the impugned to goods to general public under the impugned trademark on behest of defendant no. 1 through its array of online service directory services and facilitation of trade promotional events. The website of defendant no. 2 offers a platform to the suppliers to general business leads from buyers. The impugned website of defendant no. 2 is accessible throughout India including New Delhi area. This court has territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit as the plaintiff is working for gain and carrying on business under the trademark through its Indian subsidiary having registered office at Vasant Vihar. Since the defendant is persisting with impugned activities, the plaintiff has filed the present suit praying following reliefs :
(a) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant by themselves as also through their individual proprietors, partners, TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 7 of 17 directors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockist and all others acting for and on behalf from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising, promoting etc by visual, audio, print mode, including on the internet or by any other mode or manner or dealing in or using the impugned trademark IKEA or any other impugned trademark identical with and/or deceptively similar, in relation to their goods, and business of Office Furniture and allied and cognate goods or any other business / goods / product and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to amount :
(i) Infringement of plaintiff's registered trademarks
IKEA as mentioned in Para no. 8(a) to 8 (w) of the plaint.
(ii) Passing off of the plaintiff's rights in the plaintiff's
said trade mark IKEA.
(b) Restraining the defendants from disposing off or dealing
with their assets including their premises at the addresses mentioned in the Memo of Parties and their stocksintrade or any other assets as may be brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Court during the course of the proceedings and on the defendants disclosure thereof and which the defendants are called upon to disclose and/or on its ascertained 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 adversely affect the plaintiff's ability to recover the costs and pecuniary reliefs thereon.
(c) An order for delivery up of all the impugned finished and unfinished goods and materials bearing the impugned and violative trade mark or any other deceptively similar trade mark including its blocks, trade names, display boards, sign boards, trade literature and goods etc. to the plaintiff for the purposes of destruction and erasure.
(d) For an order of rendition of accounts of the defendants and a decree to the plaintiff of the amount so ascertained.
(e) An order for cost of proceedings.
And
(f) for such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court
TM No. 373/13
Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 8 of 17
may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of admission of suit an exparte adinterim injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff restraining defendant from selling, advertising and promoting or by any other mode or manner of dealing in or using the impugned trademark bearing the word / mark IKEA or any other trademark / label identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark in relation to impugned goods and other related products as those of plaintiff.
3. Pursuant to notice issued defendants appeared. Defendant no. 1 did not file written statement and defence was struck off. Written statement was filed by defendant no. 2 inter alia pleading the defendant no. 2 is only a intermediatory and the impugned mark / product catalogue was hosted free of cost on the website of defendant no. 2 by defendant no. 1. The entire data / content put up on the catalogue page in respect of defendant no. 1 has been provided entirely and exclusively by defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 2 has no role or means to verify the same since defendant no. 1 is entirely liable for the correctness of said data. Defendant no. 2 further pleads that the defendant no. 2 has not used the trademark IKEA in relation to any of its goods / services or for promoting itself in any manner. It is running and operating a B2B web portal whereby company or individual can advertise their products and see buyer for its goods and services which can be legally sold or offered to third party. The defendant no. 2 gets no profit or commission out of sale transaction between the said parties in respect of said advertised goods and services. It is further submitted that defendant no.2 has removed the alleged impugned TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 9 of 17 material from its website and brought down / shut down the three web page / catalogue of defendant no. 1.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed :
1. Whether the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's trademark and / or passed off the goods as those of the plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages and / or rendition of accounts? It so, at what extent?
3. Relief
5. It is pertinent to mention here that plaintiff and defendant no. 2 moved joint application u/o 23 rule 3 r/w section 151 of CPC alongwith supporting affidavit and settlement deed. The matter got settled in terms of joint application and the suit was decreed in terms thereof.
6. In order to prove its case plaintiff examined Sh. Gurjot Singh, Constituted Attorney as PW1. Defendant no. 1 neither appeared in person nor cross examined the witness examined by the plaintiff. It is also relevant to mention here that neither counsel for defendant no. 1 nor defendant no. 1 himself appeared for addressing arguments. The arguments were advanced by counsel for plaintiff.
7. I have heard argument advance by ld counsel for plaintiff and gone through material available on record and my issuewise findings are as under : ISSUE NO. 1
8. Plaintiff, in order to establish its case has filed evidence by way of TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 10 of 17 affidavit of Sh. Gurjot Singh, Constituted Attorney. This witness while appearing as PW1 made statement in consonance with averments made in plaint and proved documents viz. copy of Power of Attorney issued by plaintiff company in favour of Sh. Gurjot Singh to institute, sign on behalf of plaintiff to type Ex. PW1/1, photocopy of power of attorney - Ex. PW1/2, copy of letter of revocation dt. 30.05.2014 and subsequent letter of clarification dt. 22.07.2014 - Ex. PW1/3 (colly), copy of power of attorney issued in favour of Ms. Surbhi Bansal - Ex. PW1/4, extracts from the website of the plaintiff providing details about the plaintiff's business - Ex. PW1/5, extracts from plaintiff's website - Ex. PW1/6, copies of certificate of use in legal proceedings for of the plaintiff's trademark IKEA - Ex. PW1/7, extracts from Trademark Registry Ex. PW1/8 (colly), list comprising of international registrations of the plaintiff Mark A, copies of some of the trademark registration certificates of various jurisdictions Mark B (colly), copies of advertisements, brochures and other sales and promotional literature of plaintiff - Mark C (colly), some brochures of the plaintiff from internet - Ex. PW1/9, web extracts of articles about plaintiff company by third party - Ex. PW1/10 (colly), copies of newspaper reports showing commencement of the activities of plaintiff - Mark D (colly), copy of lease deed of IKEA Trading India Private Limited for the premises of its operation alongwith copy of extension - Ex. PW1/11 (colly), copies of invoices issued by IKEA to variety of third parties - Mark E (Colly), copies of some of injunction order passed by this Court - Mark F (colly), web extract of defendant's no.1 listing appearing on the website of defendant no.2 - Ex. PW1/12, extracts from internet indicating plaintiff company listed amongst the top brands - TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 11 of 17 Ex. PW1/13, copies of extracts from business week magazine indicating plaintiff's trademark IKEA - Mark G, copy of orders which recognize the plaintiff as well known company - Mark H.
9. The plaintiff claims that being holder of registered trademark IKEA, it has exclusive right to use the trademark in relation to the goods in respect of which it is registered. The plaintiff becomes entitled for the protection of his proprietary rights in goods in respect of which he has got the trademark registered.
10. In order to constitute an infringement, the act complained of must fulfilled the following requirements :
(i) The mark used by the person must be either identical with or deceptively similar to the registered trademark.
(ii) The goods in respect of which it is used must be specifically
covered by the registration
(iii) The use made by the mark must be in the course of areas
covered by the registration.
(iv) The use must be in such manner as to render it likely to be
taken as being used as a trademark.
11. Section 29 of the Trade Mark Act 1999 accords special protection to the registered trademark and grants an injunction even if the goods of the defendant are similar or dissimilar. Section 29 of the Act is as under:
29. Infringement of registered trade marks.--
(1) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 12 of 17 mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark. (2) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of--
(a) its identity with the registered trade mark and the similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark; or
(b) its similarity to the registered trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark; or
(c) its identity with the registered trade mark and the identity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark, is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark.
(3) In any case falling under clause (c) of subsection (2), the court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public. (4) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which--
(a) is identical with or similar to the registered trade mark; and
(b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and
(c) the registered trade mark has a reputation in India and the use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark. (5) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person if he uses such registered trade mark, as his trade name or part of his trade name, or name of his business concern or part of the name, of his business concern dealing in goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person uses a registered mark, if, in particular, he--
(a) affixes it to goods or the packaging thereof;
(b) offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them on the market, or stocks them for those purposes under the registered trade mark, or offers or supplies services under the registered trade mark;TM No. 373/13
Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 13 of 17
(c) imports or exports goods under the mark; or
(d) uses the registered trade mark on business papers or in advertising. (7) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who applies such registered trade mark to a material intended to be used for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper, or for advertising goods or services, provided such person, when he applied the mark, knew or had reason to believe that the application of the mark was not duly authorised by the proprietor or a licensee.
(8) A registered trade mark is infringed by any advertising of that trade mark if such advertising--
(a) takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; or
(b) is detrimental to its distinctive character; or
(c) is against the reputation of the trade mark.
(9) Where the distinctive elements of a registered trade mark consist of or include words, the trade mark may be infringed by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual representation and reference in this section to the use of a mark shall be construed accordingly.
12. Further the law of passing off provides a remedy against a false representation tending to deceive customers into believing that the goods which the defendant is selling are really the plaintiff's. The false representation may be by statement or by conduct i.e. by adopting the distinctive mark, name, design, get up or appearance of another goods. The basic question in this tort is that whether defendant conduct is such as to tend to misled the public to believe that the defendant's business is the plaintiff's or to cause confusion between the activities of the two. The essential characteristics such as (a) misrepresentation, (b) made by person in the course of trade, (c) to the prospective customers (d) which is calculated to injure the business or goodwill of traders (e) which causes actual damage to TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 14 of 17 business or goodwill of the person by whom the action is brought are to be present so at to create a valid cause of action for passing off.
13. In present case, from deposition of PW1 it is established that plaintiff is reputed and established company inter alia engaged in the business of manufacture of furniture. A foreign plaintiff ordinarily acquires reputation and goodwill for its product in India by actually selling its branded products directly or through importers or by establishing manufacturing facilities locally. The reputation can also be brought to India who have visited the foreign countries or stayed there for some time when they had opportunities of buying the product and bringing with them when they return to India. Because of globalization of trade and commerce, it is now possible to create reputation for foreign products in India and create potential customers for the goods in India. This form of reputation is spill over reputation. The plaintiff here relies upon extensive materials in the form of brochures, sale figures, advertisements, brand awareness and so on which fully establishes that being a registered proprietor of IKEA in respect of furniture it is known for its quality and standard. The unauthorized use of trademark IKEA with respect to impugned goods and business of furniture is likely to cause confusion or deception about the nexus, trade connection or association between the goods and business of defendant no. 1 with the plaintiff. The use of trademark IKEA is detriment to the plaintiff's reputation. The defendant no. 1 did not come forward to contest the claim of plaintiff for the reason best known to him. The evidence of plaintiff remained unchallenged and unrebutted. From the affidavit of plaintiff witness, it has come up on record that the nature of goods traded by both parties is furniture. It TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 15 of 17 is relevant to note that products usually sold on specified outlets through a well established chain of distributors, dealers, retail outlets and with the advent of e commerce through internet. The ultimate sale of goods depend upon number of factors such as price, quality and commission earned by each person in supply chain. The online listing of products by defendant no. 1 for furnitures on the website of defendant no. 2 amounts to a representation that business carried on by the defendant is connected with plaintiff company. The defendant no. 1 cannot be permitted to carry on the same business under similar tradename, the name not being bonafide and there being high possibility of passing off the goods, the plaintiff is entitled for injunction. The issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 2
14. So far as prayer regarding rendition of accounts and damages is concerned, there is no evidence on record. The exact figures of sales made by defendant no. 1 under the infringed trademark is not available. However, considering the fact that defendant no. 1 chooses to stay away from the proceedings stringent action is required so as to convey the message in public that there should not be proliferation of spurious goods in the market, the plaintiff is therefore awarded damages to the tune of Rs.75,000/ from defendant no. 1. Accordingly, issues no. 2 is decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no. 1. TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 16 of 17 RELIEF:
15. In view of foregoing discussion, the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant by themselves as also through their individual proprietors, partners, directors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockist and all others acting for and on behalf from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising, promoting etc by visual, audio, print mode, including on the internet or by any other mode or manner or dealing in or using the impugned trademark IKEA or any other impugned trademark identical with and/or deceptively similar, in relation to their goods, and business of Office Furniture and allied and cognate goods or any other business / goods / product and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to amount infringement of plaintiff's registered trademarks IKEA and passing off of the plaintiff's rights in the plaintiff's said trade mark IKEA. The plaintiff is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 75,000/ as damages from defendant no. 1 as ordered. The parties to bear their respective costs. Decree sheet be prepared on filing of advolerum Court fee. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Court
on 01.06.2015 (Vineeta Goyal)
Additional District Judge01,
NDD/PHC/New Delhi/01.06.2015
TM No. 373/13
Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 17 of 17
TM No. 373/13
M/s Inter IKEA Systems BV vs. M/s Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr 01.06.2015.
Present : Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
None for defendant no. 1.
Suit against defendant no. 2 decreed vide order dt. 01.12.2014. Vide separate judgment of even date permanent injunction is passed restraining the defendant by themselves as also through their individual proprietors, partners, directors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockist and all others acting for and on behalf from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising, promoting etc by visual, audio, print mode, including on the internet or by any other mode or manner or dealing in or using the impugned trademark IKEA or any other impugned trademark identical with and/or deceptively similar, in relation to their goods, and business of Office Furniture and allied and cognate goods or any other business / goods / product and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to amount infringement of plaintiff's registered trademarks IKEA and passing off of the plaintiff's rights in the plaintiff's said trade mark IKEA. The plaintiff is also entitled to a sum of Rs. 75,000/ as damages from defendant no. 1 as ordered. The parties to bear their respective costs. Decree sheet be prepared on filing of advolerum Court fee. File be consigned to record room.
(Vineeta Goyal) Additional District Judge01, NDD/PHC/New Delhi/01.06.2015 TM No. 373/13 Inter IKEA Systems BV Vs. Crystal Furniture Industries & Anr Page no. 18 of 17