Delhi District Court
Goldmedal Electricals Pvt Ltd vs Abuzar Mohammed on 8 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS SAVITA RAO, DISTRICT JUDGE
COMMERCIAL COURT-01, SOUTH ,
SAKET COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm) No. 154/2025
DLST010048602025
In the matter of :
M/s Goldmedal Electricals Pvt. Ltd.
A-302, Kemp Plaza, Mind Space
Chincholi Bunder, Off Link Road
Malad West, Mumbai - 4000 064
Maharashtra, India
................. Plaintiff
Versus
Abuzar Mohammed
Proprietor of M/s Sahara Pipes
Plot No. 10/7, Road No. 5
IDA, Nacharam, Ranga Reddy
Hyderabad - 500 076, Telangana
................. Defendant
Date of Institution : 27.03.2025
Date of Arguments : 10.12.2025 & 23.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 08.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This is suit under section 134, 135, 29 & 27 of Trade Marks Act, Section 55 of Copyright Act, 1957 for Permanent Injunction Restraining infringement, Passing Off, Delivery Up, CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 1/30 Rendition of Accounts etc. filed by plaintiff against the defendant on the facts that:
(a) Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of wide range of goods including PVC pipes, Electrical Appliances, Accessories and Fittings, Wires and Cables, Switches, Electrical Water Heaters, allied/cognate and related goods and offering services in connection therewith .
Plaintiff, through its predecessors, M/s Bright Electricals, 11-31- 27, Park Road, Vijayawada-520001, Andhra Pradesh, has been engaged in the said goods and business since the year 1979-80.In the year 1979-80, through its predecessor, Plaintiff adopted the Trade Mark/Label Trade Mark/Label GOLDMEDAL/ / / (word per se and in an artistic manner), which functions as the House mark of the Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has been using the same along with its formative marks and variations since then continuously and uninterruptedly.
(b) Plaintiff has during the course of trade, duly expanded their scale of business and ventured into the manufacture and sale of PVC pipes The word "GOLDMEDAL" also forms part of the trade name of the plaintiff and all references to the said trade mark may also include the said trade name. Plaintiff acquired all rights in the aforesaid mark/s and copyrights from its predecessor, M/s Bright Electricals Vide assignment deed dated 22/03/2013. Details of trademark registration of plaintiff in India was given in tabular format in the plaint.
CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 2/30(c) Copyright involved in the said Trademarks/Labels GOLDMEDAL are original artistic works within the meaning of Indian Copyright Act, 1957 (the Copyright Act) and the Plaintiff is the author, owner and proprietor thereof. The Plaintiff has applied for the following copyright registrations -
S. No. Trade Mark Copyright No.
1. GOLDMEDAL LABEL C.C. NO.
958/07-08/2014
2. G GOLD MEDAL C.C.NO.42292
LABEL
(d) Since the year 1979-80, plaintiff has been honestly and in the course of trade using the said Trademarks/Labels as a Trade Mark as proprietor thereof in respect of said goods and business, continuously, openly and without any interruption or interference from any corner whatsoever and has built up a valuable trade, goodwill and reputation there under and acquired proprietary rights therein.Plaintiff obtained governmental registration like Sales Tax registration, Central Excise registration, PAN Number. The Plaintiffs goods are also certified by Bureau of Indian Standards and therefore bear BIS mark. Besides the Plaintiff also enjoys numerous quality assurance and other registration. Plaintiff is the proprietor, prior and senior adopter and user of said Trade Mark/Label. The said goods and business being carried on by the Plaintiff under said Trademarks/Labels is a very extensive one and the said goods and business there under have been practically distributed in major parts of the country. The said Trademarks/Labels are also exported to various foreign countries in large quantities.
CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 3/30(e) With the advent of the internet, plaintiff started selling and supplying its goods on a large scale through the online mode through its website under the domain name https://www.goldmedalindia.com, which contains the goods under the said Trade Mark GOLDMEDAL of the plaintiff. The said domain of the Plaintiff is extremely popular and has a tremendous footfall from the consumers .The plaintiff's goods are extensively available, sold, purchased and delivered through its interactive websites https://www.goldmedalindia.com , as well as through big online marketplaces like https://www.amazon.in , https://www.flipkart.com , https://www.indiamart.com and social media websites and platforms namely https://www.facebook.com and https://x.com/home. The said goods and business under the Trademarks/Labels are identified as exclusively originating from the Plaintiffs source and are identified with the Plaintiff. The said Trademarks/Labels have already become distinctive and associated with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiffs said goods and business on account of its long, continuous, extensive and exclusive user thereof since 1979-1980 respectively till date. The goods and business bearing the said trade mark/Label are highly demanded in the markets on account of their standard quality and precision and has acquired tremendous goodwill and enviable reputation in the markets.
(f) Plaintiff, as stated, has been continuously promoting its said goods and business under said Trademarks/Labels through different means and modes included through their advertisements and publicity in leading newspapers, of trade literature, trade hoardings and boards etc. Plaintiff has already spent enormous amounts on its aforesaid including to the excellent quality and CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 4/30 the high standards of the Plaintiffs manufacture and trade under said Trade Mark/Label, they enjoy solid, enduring and first-class reputation in the markets. In view of the Plaintiffs' proprietary rights both under statutory and common law in their said trademarks, its goodwill & reputation, and its copyrights, plaintiffs has the exclusive right to the use the said trademark and nobody can be permitted to use the same or any other deceptively similar trademark / label/ logo/ tradename/ trading style/ domain name in any manner whatsoever in relation to any specification of goods without the leave and license of the Plaintiffs.
(g) Defendant is also engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, supplying, distribution and trading of PVC waste pipe, Hose pipes, Garden Pipes, allied and cognate goods etc under the mark's labels "GOLD MEDAL/ ".
Defendant is in unauthorised and unlawful use of the Plaintiff's registered Trade Mark 'GOLDMEDAL' in the course of its impugned business. Sale of impugned goods through various interactive e-commerce websites enables the Defendant to target a larger consumer base, increasing the likelihood of deception and further aggravating the loss caused to the Plaintiff. The Defendant's malafide actions are aimed at unlawfully benefitting from the goodwill and reputation that the Plaintiff has built over the years.
(h) In the first week of March 2025, plaintiff through credible sources, discovered that the Defendant is unauthorizedly displaying and offering for sale impugned goods bearing the Plaintiff's registered trademark "GOLDMEDAL" on interactive e-commerce platforms such as https://www.indiamart.com , CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 5/30 https://www.justdial.com,https://www.tradeindia.com.Defendant' s unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's mark constitutes trademark infringement, causing confusion among consumers and leading to the dilution and misappropriation of the Plaintiff's goodwill and brand reputation. The Defendants' malafide adoption and use of the impugned mark/label are intended to deceive the public and unlawfully benefit from the Plaintiff's established market presence.
(i) Plaintiff initiated a market inquiry to ascertain the extent and impact of the Defendants unlawful use of the impugned mark/label, which revealed that the Defendant's impugned goods were prominently being displayed and offered for sale on various e-commerce platforms, misleading the general public into believing that they originate from or are associated with the Plaintiff. Defendant's acts amount to infringement of trademark and copyright, passing off, causing irreparable harm to the Plaintiff's business, reputation, and proprietary rights. The blatant infringement and misrepresentation by the Defendants demonstrate a wilful and deliberate attempt to encroach upon the Plaintiff's exclusive rights, warranting immediate legal intervention.
(j) Defendant has adopted and started using the marks/labels on his goods which is identical/ deceptively similar to the said trademark/label of the Plaintiff. The defendant is not the proprietor of the impugned Mark/ label and have adopted and started using selling, soliciting and networking for the same in relation to its impugned goods and business and is otherwise dealing with it in the course of trade without the leave and license of the plaintiff. This unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 6/30 trademark not only damages the Plaintiff's business reputation but also is likely to cause confusion among consumers, potentially diverting trade and customers to the Defendant's infringing goods under the belief that the goods of the Defendant's originate from the Plaintiffs source or that there exists some vital link of the Defendant with the Plaintiff. From perusal of the listings of the Defendant for the impugned goods, plaintiff also came across the GST details of the Defendant, which revealed that the Defendant is the proprietor of M/s Sahara Pipes.
(k) Defendant by its impugned adoption and use of the impugned marks/ labels, is violating the Plaintiffs right in the said trade mark/label and thereby passing off and enabling others to pass off its impugned goods and business as that of the plaintiff as well as diluting the plaintiffs' proprietary rights therein. Defendant's gains are plaintiffs' losses. If the defendant is not restrained from continuing the same, plaintiff shall continue to have irreparable losses of business as well as the said act will injure the goodwill of plaintiff's trademarks. Thus, the plaintiff, as stated, is entitled for order of injunction as well as damages in the suit.
2. Vide order dated 03.04.2025, interim injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff whereby defendant, his associates and agents, directors, officers, employees, distributors, franchisee, representatives and assignees were restrained from :-
i. using impugned trademark/label/brand " GOLD MEDAL " or any other trade mark/label/name identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademark/label" GOLD MEDAL" in relation to impugned goods and business and other CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 7/30 allied/cognate/related goods, thereby infringing the registered trademarks and copyright.
ii. using any mark identical and / or confusingly or deceptively similar to trademarks of the plaintiff and thereby passing off its goods and business as that of the goods and business of the plaintiff.
iii. Using any indicia whatsoever to show any association or affiliation or connection of the defendant or its product with the plaintiff company or its products, till further orders.
3. It was submitted on behalf of defendant that they had merely received the consignment for manufacturing the water pipe with the impugned mark. It was stated that they shall not use the impugned mark in future for any other consignments and were also ready to settle the matter with the opposite party. On request, time was permitted to parties for talks of settlement. However, lateron, it was informed that the matter could not be settled between the parties. Thereafter, application under Order XIII-A Rule III r/w section 151 CPC was moved on behalf of defendant for summary Judgment.
4. It was stated that by way of this summary judgment application, defendant is seeking summary judgment for dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for damages and rendition of accounts, and for disposal of the suit. It was submitted that plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on its contested claims, particularly because the defendant has already ceased use of the impugned mark and agrees to suffer decree for permanent injunction and is willing to deliver up any infringing material, thus leaving no subsisting triable issues that would require the rigours of an expensive, time-consuming full trial. It was CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 8/30 reiterated that defendant agrees to provide an unconditional undertaking to forthwith cease all manufacturing, marketing and sale of any goods bearing the impugned mark " GOLD MEDAL"
or any mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark. As further submitted, since the primary relief of injunction is no longer contested, the core dispute between the parties stands resolved. The defendant's submission to the decree obviates the need for a lengthy and expensive trial on the issue of infringement or passing off. Continuing with a full trial merely for the ancillary reliefs of damages or rendition of accounts, would be contrary to the spirit of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which mandates expeditious disposal of commercial disputes. Further, there is no compelling reason for this case to proceed to a full and protracted trial, especially when the primary reliefs have been rendered uncontested by the defendant's action and undertaking. It was therefore, prayed that in light of the defendant's undertaking and willingness to suffer the decree, suit may be tried summarily and final decree to bring an immediate and conclusive end to the present litigation, may be passed.
5. Ld. counsel for defendant further made following submissions:
(a) That in a further demonstration of the Defendant's bona fide intentions and his commitment to bringing a swift and conclusive end to this litigation, the defendant unconditionally agrees to the Plaintiff's prayer for delivery up of all infringing materials.
(b) That defendant has no intention of prolonging this dispute. From the moment the suit was instituted, the Defendant's actions have been geared towards immediate compliance. This CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 9/30 willingness to cooperate extends to the disposal of any materials that are the subject matter of the Plaintiff's claim.
(c) That pursuant to the order of this Court, the Local Commissioner has already visited the Defendant's premises and has seized certain goods and materials alleged to be infringing.
The Defendant raises no objection to this seizure and consents to the delivery up of these seized items for the purpose of destruction or as otherwise directed by this Court. Furthermore, to ensure complete resolution, defendant provides a solemn and unconditional undertaking to deliver up any and all remaining infringing goods, packaging materials, labels, blocks, or any other articles in his possession, custody, or control that bear the impugned "GOLD MEDAL" mark. The total quantity of such materials, including those already seized, is minimal, reflecting the limited and short-term nature of the work undertaken by the Defendant.
(d) That defendant is prepared to hand over these materials to an authorized representative of the Plaintiff for the purpose of destruction or otherwise dispose them of in a manner directed by this Court. This action directly satisfies one of the key reliefs sought in the Plaint.
(e) That by consenting to this relief, defendant eliminates another potential issue that might otherwise require adjudication at trial. The question of whether such materials exist and whether they should be delivered up is no longer a point of contention since defendant has already conceded to the permanent injunction and now agrees to the delivery up of all materials. The substantive prayers of the plaintiff have been fully addressed. Continuing with a full trial would therefore serve no practical CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 10/30 purpose and would only lead to unnecessary legal costs and inefficient use of the court's time.
(f) That the foundational dispute of the present suit has been rendered moot by the Defendant's actions and undertakings, thereby leaving no substantial triable issue that would necessitate a full and protracted trial. The Defendant, in a clear demonstration of his bona fide intentions and respect for the judicial process, agrees to suffer a decree for a permanent injunction as prayed for by the Plaintiff.
(g) That the primary objective of the Plaintiff's suit is to secure a permanent injunction to stop the Defendant from using the impugned trademark "GOLD MEDAL". The Defendant has already, immediately upon becoming aware of the existence and nature of the Plaintiff's rights by way of the raid conducted by the Local Commissioner and the institution of the present suit, ceased all activities related to this mark and now formally undertakes to permanently refrain from any such use in the future, By conceding to the main relief, the Defendant has effectively resolved the central conflict. A "triable issue" requires a genuine dispute of material fact. As the Defendant is no longer contesting the injunction, there is no dispute left to be tried on the core issue of infringement.
(h) That defendant's position is that his use of the mark was entirely innocent. Не was manufacturing a very minimal quantity of the impugned goods on a contractual basis for a third party, without any knowledge of the Plaintiff's specific trademark rights. The Defendant had no independent intention to build a competing brand or to trade upon the Plaintiff's goodwill. This context is crucial as it demonstrates that there was no willful or CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 11/30 malicious intent to infringe, which further supports the argument that a lengthy trial on ancillary issues is unwarranted.
(i) That the spirit and objective of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and specifically the provision for summary judgment under Order XIIIA, is to ensure the swift resolution of commercial disputes where no real defense exists or where the core dispute has been resolved. Proceeding to a full trial when the Defendant has already agreed to the primary relief would be contrary to this objective. It would lead to unnecessary expenditure of time, money, and judicial resources on issues that are now ancillary (like damages, which are statutorily barred) or conceded (like delivery up).
(j) That defendant's involvement was minimal and unintentional. Defendant was manufacturing the impugned goods on a contractual basis for a third party and had produced only a very minimal quantity of these items. The Defendant was entirely unaware of the Plaintiff's specific trademark rights in relation to these goods. Upon becoming aware of the existence and nature of the Plaintiff's rights by way of the raid conducted by the Local Commissioner and the institution of the present suit, the Defendant immediately eased all activities connected to the impugned mark "GOLD MEDAL".
(k) That Local, Commissioner has already seized the impugned goods from the Defendant's premises. In light of this, the Defendant gives a solemn and unconditional undertaking that he will not, at any point in the future, use or manufacture the impugned goods or any goods bearing a mark identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs trademark. The Defendant is also ready to destroy and deliver up the seized impugned goods CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 12/30 as and when directed by this Court. As the Defendant has ceased all infringing activities and has submitted to the primary reliefs sought, thus no triable issue remains that would warrant the time and expense of a full trial.
6. Ld. counsel for plaintiff submitted that plaintiff also has no objection if the present suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, however, since the defendant has deliberately made false statements in order to evade liability, decreee should be subject to grant of the cost of litigation and damages as calculated by the plaintiff in written submissions.
7. Grounds for summary judgment -"The Court may give summary judgment against plaintiff or defendant on a claim if it considers that :-
(a) the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as the case may be; and
(b) there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed off before recording of oral evidence".
8. To the extent that defendant was ready to suffer the decree pertaining to injunction and delivery up of the material, parties are at consensus-ad-idem, therefore, decree for permanent injunction and delivery up is hereby passed. Defendant by himself as also through its individual proprietors, partners, directors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on his behalf is restrained from soliciting, networking, manufacturing, marketing. using, selling, displaying, advertising or by any other mode or manner (including through any CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 13/30 online medium/ websites/platforms/ social media) dealing in or using the impugned trademark/label "GOLDMEDAL" or any other trademark/label/logo identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark/label "GOLDMEDAL" in relation to his impugned goods and business and related/cognate/allied goods and/ or from doing any other acts or deeds, amounting to Infringement of the plaintiff's registered Trademark/labels/Copyrights and Passing off his goods as that of the plaintiff .
9. Local Commissioner was appointed in the matter and in terms of report of LC, 40 Rolls of Soft Garden Pipes and 05 Rolls of Large Garden Pipes were seized from the premises of defendant, which were handed over to the defendant on Superdari vide Superdarinama with the undertaking to keep the goods with complete care and untampered condition. Accordingly, defendant is directed to delivery up all the impugned finished and unfinished material of defendant bearing the impugned trademark/label 'GOLDMEDAL' including any other trademark/label identical with and deceptively similar to it including blocks and labels, display boards, sign boards, trade literature, advertisement material etc. to the plaintiff for purpose of destruction and erasure.
10. With regard to claim of damages, Ld. counsel for plaintiff submitted that :
(a) defendant's contention that the Plaintiff has failed to establish its claim for damages or rendition of accounts of profits is wholly misconceived and untenable.The submissions advanced by the Defendant in the application under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 particularly with respect to its alleged bona fide and innocent conduct, are nothing but an attempt to evade liability for its wrongful and dishonest acts.CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 14/30
(b) That such lack of bonafide is evident from the on-spot proceedings recorded by the Ld. Local Commissioner in his report dated 30.04.2025, wherein, upon inquiry, defendant falsely claimed to have applied for registration of the trademark "GOLD MEDAL", which is admittedly untrue. Furthermore, the Defendant failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate its claim regarding the identity of the entity that allegedly engaged it to manufacture goods under the impugned trademark "GOLD MEDAL."
11. Following calculation was given by Ld. counsel for plaintiff in written submissions :
" According to the Ld. Local Commissioner's report the value of the seized goods is approximately Rs. 31,500.
1. The actual damages owed by the Defendant to the Plaintiff are calculated in the following terms:
a) Value of seized finished goods - 45 Rs. 700-Rs. 31,500 (Rs. 700 is mentioned on the product as seized by the local commissioner)
b) As per the knowledge of the plaintiff, the defendant has been carrying out its business since the first week of March. The number of days comes down to 28 days when calculated from the date of knowledge till the institution of the suit.
c) An estimate of the total production of the impugned goods by the defendant is 28*31,500 = Rs. 8,82,000
d) Profit margin = 20%
e) Profit earned by the Defendant (damages owed to the Plaintiff)-
20% of Rs. 8,82,000 = Rs. 1,76,400/-.
II. Plaintiff is the victim of the Defendant's unlawful activities since not only have their statutory rights been violated, but they have also suffered loss of goodwill and reputation at the hands of the Defendant. Therefore, the defendant is also liable to pay punitive/exemplary damages to the plaintiff. At least one-third of the actual damages, i.e., 1/3 Rs. 1,76,400 Rs. 58,800, should be awarded as damages in this scenario, as the defendant had been carrying out his business for almost 28 days before the institution of the suit.
Therefore, the total damages payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff are Rs. 1,76,400+ Rs. 58,800= Rs. 2,35,200 III. The Plaintiff should also be awarded the actual costs of the litigation. Total costs and damages Actual damages (i.e., Rs. 1,76,400) + CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 15/30 Punitive/Exemplary Damages (i.e., Rs. 58,800) + Cost of Litigation (Rs. 1,00,000 (LC Fees) 1,50,000 (including miscellaneous expenses for execution of Local Commission and cost of litigation) = Rs. 4,85,200/-."
12. Ld. counsel for defendant submitted that Considering that Defendant has ceased to use the impugned mark immediately on knowledge. makes him eligible for benefits under Sec 135(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. It was submitted that Sec 135(3) precludes the grant of damages or an account of profits if the Defendant satisfies the Court that he was acting as an "innocent infringer." The relevant provision is reproduced here below:
" Section 135: Relief in suit for infringement or for passing off :
1.The relief which a court may grant in any suit for infringement or for passing off referred to in section 134 includes injunction (subject to such terms, if any, as the court thinks fit) and at the option of the plaintiff, either damages or an account of profits, together with or without any order for the delivery-up of the infringing labels and marks for destruction or erasure.
2. ...............
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the court shall not grant relief by way of damages (other than nominal damages) or on account of profits in any case -
(a)where in a suit for infringement of a trade mark, the infringement complained of is in relation to a certification trade mark or collective mark; or
(b) where in a suit for infringement the defendant satisfies the court-
(i) that at the time he commenced to use the trade mark complained of in the suit, he was unaware and had no reasonable ground for believing that the trade mark of the plaintiff was on the register or that the plaintiff was a registered user using by way of permitted use, and
(ii) that when he became aware of the existence and nature of the plaintiff's right in the trade mark, he forthwith ceased to use the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which it was registered; or".
13. It was submitted that in the present case, defendant satisfies both these statutory conditions and hence is not liable to pay any damages to the Plaintiff, having cured the infringement instantly upon notice, the spirit of the provision demands that the Court protects the defendant from disproportionate financial CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 16/30 penalty. Ld. counsel for defendant further made following submissions:
(a) That plaintiff's claim for Rs. 3,10,000 as damages, which is the only issue that remains for consideration in the present suit, is speculative, arbitrary, and not based on any actual accounts of profit or loss proved on record. The Plaintiff has failed to file any documentary proof to showcase any losses or damages. The burden of proof rests entirely on the Plaintiff to establish a direct nexus between the Defendant's activities and any quantifiable loss to their business or reputation. The Plaintiff has simply made a claim in terrorem (as a threat) with the sole intention of coercing the Defendant into an unwarranted financial settlement, rather than claiming genuine compensatory damages.
(b) That defendant is a small-time retailer/shopkeeper who lacks any malicious intent to infringe Plaintiff's mark. If the case was such, the Defendant would never have willingly given up the use of the mark and intended to suffer the decree.
(c) That punitive damages are unjustified and harsh. The primary purpose of punitive damages is deterrence against systemic wrongdoing, not to unjustly punish a small, first-time, repentant infringer. Awarding high damages against a defendant who has consented to the injunction and ceased operations defeats this purpose and is inequitable..
(d) That defendant was unaware of the Plaintiff's registration at the time of manufacturing and, more importantly, upon becoming aware of the existence and nature of the Plaintiff's rights by way of raid conducted by the Local Commissioner and the institution of the present suit, he immediately and completely ceased all activities related to the CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 17/30 impugned mark. This demonstrates the Defendant's good faith and responsible conduct.
(e) That the claim for Damages is Speculative and Unsubstantiated. The Plaintiff's claim for a decree of Rs 3,10,000 as damages is arbitrary, speculative, and lacks any factual foundation. The Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that it has suffered any actual loss or quantifiable damage as a result of the Defendant's limited and short-lived activities. The claim appears to be punitive rather than 'a genuine assessment of compensatory damages.
(f) That liability, if any, would be for Nominal Damages Only. Without prejudice to the above, even if this Court were to find a technical infringement, the circumstances of this case would, at most, warrant only for nominal damages. The factors mitigating any potential liability are overwhelming: the Defendant's bona fide conduct, the very small quantity of goods produced, the contract-manufacturing nature of the work, and the immediate cessation upon notice. This conduct aligns with the principles for an innocent infringer as provided under Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act, which empowers the court to deny substantial monetary relief in the form of damages or an account of profits. A trial for nominal damages is contrary to the principles of proportionality and the objectives of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which aims for the expeditious resolution of disputes. It would be an inefficient use of judicial time to conduct a full trial on an issue that can only result in a token award.
(g) Given the clear statutory bar under Section 135(3) and the unsubstantiated nature of the claim, the Plaintiff has no real CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 18/30 prospect of success in its prayer for damages or account of profits. Therefore, these claims should be dismissed at the summary judgment stage.
14. Ld. counsel for defendant placed reliance upon following:
DKT India v. HLL. Lifecare Ltd. (2014:DHC:6801), wherein it was held that:
"If the defendants have not contested the suit for injunction and at the threshold admitted their mistake, the grant of damages even nominal or rendition of account would not only be against the law but also unjustified and harsh."
J & P Coats Ltd. v. Rahul Gupta (2014:DHC:2220), wherein having regard to the status of the defendants, Hon'ble Court accepted the offer of the defendants for damages in the sum of Rs. 50,000/-."
Ld. counsel for defendant further placed reliance upon Montblanc Simplo Gmbh v. M/S Jai Lakshman (2023/DHC/000267) and submitted that in the said case Hon'ble Hight Court demonstrated the judicial constraint on damages, even in cases of serious infringement. It was submitted that though the said case involved a severe and systemic infringement where the defendants were found in possession of over 1.200 counterfeit items, the Hon'ble Court, even under those egregious facts, exercised caution, Crucially, in Para 26, the Court restricted the final financial award to the calculation of "actual costs" based on proven expenses, and did not award arbitrary punitive damages. This precedent establishes that even for large-scale offenders, the judiciary prefers quantified costs over speculative, high punitive damages".
CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 19/3015. Ld. counsel for plaintiff submitted that defendant cannot claim the statutory defence of Section 135(3) of the Trademarks Act 1999. The provision is crystal clear that the benefit of the said provision can only be taken in cases where the defendant was unaware and had no reasonable ground for believing that the trademark of the Plaintiff was on the register. It was further submitted that defendant himself falsely claimed before the Ld. Local Commissioner that he has applied for registration of the trademark but has not been assigned. Hence, now it is only after being counselled that the Defendant is attempting to take the benefit of Section 135 when in fact the Defendant was aware about the trademark of the Plaintiff.
16. Ld. counsel for plaintiff stated that had the defendant been manufacturing the goods merely on a contractual basis, the impugned products would not have been independently advertised by the Defendant. However, the goods bearing the impugned trademark "GOLD MEDAL" were prominently advertised in a brochure uploaded by the Defendant himself on its India Mart page which clearly demonstrates that the Defendant had been regularly and continuously using the impugned trademark on the impugned products and actively distributing the same in the market. The said conduct further substantiates the Plaintiff's case and exposes the Defendant's submissions as false and self-serving, made solely to avoid liability arising from its infringing acts. Had the Defendant only been manufacturing on a contractual basis as claimed by the Defendant they would have been able to show some documentation with respect to who placed the order for manufacturing the impugned goods under the impugned CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 20/30 trademark. The Defendant is making false statements on oath in order to evade liability for its infringing activities.
17. Ld. counsel for plaintiff further sought to differentiate the judgments relied upon by defendants while making following submissions:
(a) That, in J&P Coats Ltd. Vs. Rahul Gupta, MANU/DE/1899/2014, no infringing goods were seized from the premises of the defendant. This is the distinguishing factor in our case. Since no goods were sized, Defendant No. 1 is making a statement that he has neither infringed on the trademark of the plaintiff nor will he do the same in the future. In the present case of the plaintiff, the impugned goods were seized by the Local Commissioner, which indicates that the defendant was actually involved in infringing activities.
(b) In Montblanc-Simplo GMBH vs. M/S Jai Lakshman and Ors, 2023/DHC/000267, the remaining defendants who had filed an application under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were merely sellers of the impugned goods, and they also stated in their Written Statement that "Defendant themselves are like the customers of the same impugned products, who do not know the origin, authenticity, and genuineness of the impugned products."
In the instant case, defendant himself is manufacturing, which is an admitted position of fact as mentioned on their own IndiaMart Page, and as per their own admission in the trademark application in the present application, that they had manufactured the goods under the impugned trademark.
(c) In DKT India vs HLL Lifecare Ltd. & Anr., CS(OS) No. 2497/2012, no raid was conducted. Further, the plaintiff CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 21/30 himself filed an additional document on record, which showed that even before the suit was filed, the defendant number one had intimated that they were willing to settle the dispute between the parties. In this case, only a nominal damage of Rs. 1,00,000 was granted. Since the court was of the opinion that, had the plaintiff settled the matter with the defendant, the need for filing a suit would not have arisen altogether.
(d) That cases like these are exceptional circumstances wherein the defendant's willingness to settle the dispute arose even before an injunction was granted against them, which demonstrated their bona fides. In the present case, however, no such communication between the parties was made. It was only after the suit had been filed and the local commissioner's execution had been carried out at the defendant's premises. The defendant has later on stated that they are willing to give up the mark completely, but the submissions that have been made by the defendant during the time of the Local Commissioner's execution and now before the present court are contrary to the extent that when the raid was conducted, they were trying to mislead the Ld. Local Commissioner by stating that they have applied for the registration of the trademark GOLDMEDAL when no such application exists in reality. Now, after being counselled, they are stating that they were not aware of the trademark GOLDMEDAL at all.
18. Reliance was placed by Ld. counsel for plaintiff upon following:
Koninlijke Philips N.V. and Another versus Amazestore and Others [(2019)78 PTC 618:CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 22/30
" 27. This Court is satisfied with the evidence led by the Plaintiffs and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs that a conservative margin of profit of 20% can be assumed in the present suits while assessing the actual damages payable by the Defendants.
30. This Court is of the opinion that the degree of misconduct by Defendants in a civil suit is often determinative of the nature of relief to be granted by a Court to the Plaintiffs. The law is well-settled that the degree of mala fide conduct has a direct impact on the quantum and nature of damages that could be awarded in addition to a claim for actual / compensatory damages".
Whatman International Limited versus P. Mehta and Others [2019: DHC:676]:
"33. A perusal of the pleadings on record and the submissions made, shows that the Defendants do not seriously challenge the proprietary rights of the Plaintiff in the trademark WHATMAN. They also do not challenge that the Plaintiff sells filter paper under the WHATMAN mark in a specific white and blue combination. The categorical submission recorded of the Ld. counsel for the Defendants is that the Defendants are willing to suffer a permanent injunction......
64. The Defendants are clearly not coming clean with the Court. They are not only making false statements in their pleadings, but are also misleading the Court by trying to create a farcical cloak of independent businesses. The illegality of selling WHATMAN counterfeit paper and lookalike filter paper has continued since the time when the first FIR was registered in 1993.
74. Insofar as the Plaintiffs case for damages is concerned, applying the judgment in Hindustan Unilever Limited v Reckitt Benckiser India Limited RFA (OS) 50/ 2008, Decided on 31st January, 2014, the Defendants are liable to compensate the Plaintiff in damages as also punitive damages"
19. Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of the goods under the trademark/label GOLDMEDAL which was adopted by the plaintiff in year 1979-80. Plaintiff obtained registrations for the trademark GOLDMEDAL under various classes. Copy right in the said trademark/label are also duly registered in favour of plaintiff. Sales figures of plaintiff under the said trademark/label were brought on record in tabular format in the plaint, in terms of which, sales figures in financial year 2022-2023 CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 23/30 was Rs. 24,21,10,70,000/-. It is not disputed by defendant that it was also engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling pipes under the trademark ' GOLDMEDAL'. In compliance of order dated 03.04.2025, Ld. Local Commissioner had visited the premises of defendant when defendant admitted that they were manufacturing soft PVC pipes having ' GOLD MEDAL' mark. Goods were verified by the representative of plaintiff company which all were found to be having fake seals and marks of ' GOLD MEDAL'. Defendant could not produce any authorization documents and stated that they had applied for trademark of GOLD Medal which had not been assigned. Defendant also failed to produce ledger, stock register and invoices related to these items. All the infringing goods found with defendant were bearing trademark identical or deceptively and confusing similar to the 'GOLD MEDAL' marks of plaintiff.
20. Although defendant claims to have stopped the user and also stated that it had been manufacturing the goods merely on contractual basis. The submission made by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff nevertheless holds ground that had the defendant been manufacturing the goods merely on contractual basis, the impugned products would not have been independently advertised by the defendant in a brochure uploaded on India Mart Page. Defendant has also not placed on record any document to indicate the manufacture of the impugned goods on contractual basis. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that onus was upon the defendant to prove that at the time of commencement of the business, defendant was unaware about the trademark belonging to plaintiff. Further, defendant had not stopped the user of impugned trademark, of his own but only in pursuance to the court's order.
CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 24/30Ld. Counsel for plaintiff also submitted that therefore the adoption of the mark by defendant was not honest. It is incomprehensible that defendant was not aware of the brand/trademark, goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff while operating in the same field. At the same time, at first date of appearance before the court, defendant informed that they shall not be using the impugned mark in future and defendant himself moved the application for passing of summary judgment submitting its willingness to suffer the decree for injunction as well as for grant of nominal damages without prejudice to its submission with regard to no liability for damages.
21. As also noted in another judgment passed by this court pertaining to point of damages that underlying principle between 'compensatory damages' and 'punitive damages' has been dealt in various cases by the Hon'ble High Court and Apex Court. Submission made in the other case is worth mention here also that generally, the court passes 'compensatory damages' in cases, where the plaintiff has suffered damages on account of the infringing activities of the defendant and compensatory damages are granted to compensate the loss suffered by the plaintiff, whereas the 'punitive damages' is granted to deter a wrong doer from indulging in unlawful activities.
22. The term 'damages' can be taken to be a pecuniary compensation which may be recovered in the courts by any non- breaching party which has suffered loss, detriment, or injury, whether to his person, property, or rights due to the unlawful act or omission or negligence on behalf of another party. The jurisprudence developed on this subject defines three types of damages in IPR regime. They are nominal damages; real CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 25/30 damages and extraordinary or punitive damages. Nominal damages are in fact to recognize that the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's rights. They are only token and have nothing to do with the actual damages that the plaintiff might have suffered. To maintain a claim to such damages, the plaintiff has to clear the litmus test of proving his entitlement for injunction.
23. Real damages are the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff on account of the wrongful acts of the defendant. These are basically meant to set back the clock i.e. to restore the plaintiff in nearly the same situation that existed prior to the commission of wrongful act on the part of the defendant. This is easier said than done. In fact, there is no 'rule of thumb' or straight jacket formula to ascertain the exact amount of damages. This requires a scrutiny of balance sheet, book of accounts or host of other exercise to find out. This may require a peep into 'accounts of profit or profit of accounts'. Still such damages may not be ascertainable with a scientific precision or mathematical exactitude.
24. Punitive damages or exemplary damages, are the damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct or to deter the defendant (and for that matter others too) from engaging in similar obnoxious conduct. For entitlement to these damages, the record must show that the conduct of the defendant was dishonest; intention of the defendant was malafide to take the piggy bank right upon the plaintiff's intellectual property rights and that there is nothing to show that defendant had a reasonable or sufficient cause for doing the wrongful act.
25. As brought on record, considerable jurisprudence has developed in the recent past to burden the infringers with CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 26/30 punitive damages apart from actual damages. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Anr. Vs. Amazestore (supra) as also relied upon by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and a connected matter decided on 22.04.2019 in CS (Comm) 737 of 2016 has laid down some of the principles which a Court ought to look into while granting punitive damages. While awarding compensatory damages as claimed by the plaintiff's, the Court awarded aggravate/exemplary damages of a total of Rs 1 Crore over and above the compensatory damages on account of the degree of malafide conduct of the defendants. Hon'ble High Court has also laid down the rule of thumb that should be followed while granting damages, with observation that injunction may be granted against the first time innocent infringer, while injunction and cost may be awarded against first time knowing infringer whereas the repeated knowing infringer causing minor and major impact to the plaintiff may be burdened with injunction, costs, partial damages/compensatory damages respectively. Aggravated damages may be awarded to the deliberate and calculated infringer (Gangster/scam/ mafia) + wilful contempt of court.
26. From the material placed on record by the plaintiff and in the light of the factual and legal submissions as discussed above, there is substantial force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that the defendant has taken advantage of the trademark, goodwill and popularity of the plaintiff and has enriched himself at the plaintiff's cost and expenses. There was every likelihood that the customer might have been mis-guided with user of the trademark by defendant and the services being provided by plaintiff might have resulted in the dilution of the goodwill of the CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 27/30 plaintiff. In terms of report of LC, 40 rolls of soft garden pipes and 5 rolls of large garden pipes were recovered, having the total market value of the seized goods at Rs. 31500/- as assessed by plaintiff based upon the MRP of Rs. 700/- as mentioned on the product. Ld. Counsel for defendant though stated that the total market value of the seized goods was extremely minimal as each kg was sold at market price of Rs. 90/-.
27. Plaintiff has claimed the damages based upon the profit earned by the defendant at 20% of Rs. 8,82,000/- as per the number of days calculated at 28 from the date of knowledge of the plaintiff till the institution of the suit alongwith punitive damages and the cost of litigation . However, the above assessment from plaintiff is also the guess work in absence of the account statement/yearly profit figures of defendant on record. In view of seizure of impugned products from the premises of defendant by Local Commissioner, not filing of written statement, undertaking of defendant with regard to no future user of the impugned mark and instant application having been moved by defendant himself, this court does not find any requirement to record oral evidence in the present case.
28. Nevertheless, considering the defendant's business scale, it is also not the case for award of Punitive damages or exemplary damages to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct or to deter the defendant from engaging in similar conduct since at the first appearance before the court, it was brought on record that defendant shall not use the impugned trademark in future. Although, by that time plaintiff had already incurred expenses for filing of the case. Local Commissioner was appointed and fees of Rs. 1,00,000/- was incurred by plaintiff alongwith other CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 28/30 miscellaneous expenses for visit of Ld. Local Commissioner. Taking a reasonable assessment of the nature of infringement indulged into by defendant, in the opinion of the court, plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages and litigation cost. Accordingly, plaintiff is awarded sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. Two lacs Fifty Thousand only) as damages and litigation cost.
29. The suit is decreed with cumulative amount of nominal damages and litigation cost in sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rs. Two lacs Fifty Thousand only). If the payment towards decreetal amount is not cleared within one month, thereafter decreetal amount shall be payable alongwith interest @ 9 % p.a. till realization.
30. Further, Defendant by himself as also through its individual proprietors, partners, directors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on his behalf is restrained from soliciting, networking, manufacturing, marketing. using, selling, displaying, advertising or by any other mode or manner (including through any online medium/ websites/platforms/ social media) dealing in or using the impugned trademark/label "GOLDMEDAL" or any other trademark/label/logo identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark/label "GOLDMEDAL" in relation to his impugned goods and business and related/cognate/allied goods and/ or from doing any other acts or deeds, amounting to Infringement of the plaintiff's registered Trademark/labels/Copyrights and Passing off his goods as that of the plaintiff .
31. Defendant is further directed to deliver up all the impugned finished and unfinished material of defendant bearing the impugned trademark/label 'GOLDMEDAL' including any other trademark/label identical with and deceptively similar to it CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 29/30 including blocks and labels, display boards, sign boards, trade literature, advertisement material etc. to the plaintiff for purpose of destruction and erasure.
32. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after completion of necessary formalities.
Digitally signedsavita by savita rao Date: rao 2026.01.08 15:30:15 +0530 Announced in the open (SAVITA RAO) court on this 8th Day DISTRICT JUDGE of January 2026 (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01 SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, DELHI CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 30/30