Delhi District Court
Shriram Pistons And Rings Limited vs Anil on 21 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF Sh. RAJESH KUMAR GOEL
District Judge (Commercial Court) -02,
Central, Tis Hazari
DLCT010136322018
CS (COMM.) No.1775/2019
CNR No. DLCT010136322018
"SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Limited
A company registered under the provisions off
Companies Act, 1956
Having its Registered Office at
3rd Floor, Himalaya House
23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg
New Delhi-110001
Through
Mr. Vijay Singh Rana
Its Authorised Representative ......Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Vikas
Building No. T-2475
Subhash Mohalla, Naiwala
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005
......Defendant
Date of filing of suit : 18.10.2018
Date of Argument : 21.12.2024
Date of Judgment : 21.12.2024
"SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd
vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 1 of 26 )
JUDGMENT (Exparte)
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed on behalf of the plaintiff company seeking the reliefs of injunctions restraining the defendant from infringement and passing off Trademark and copyright belonging to the plaintiff and also for Delivery up and damages etc.
2. Here it is pertinent to mention that initially, the suit was filed against the defendant arrayed as 'Ashok Kumar' on the basis of 'John Doe' principle as applicable in India and subsequently, name of the defendant namely 'vikas' was impleaded, vide order dated 03.09.2024.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The case of the plaintiff, as made out in the plaint is that the plaintiff is a company duly registered under the provisions of Companies Act,1956 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of engine components such as pistons, piston pins, piston rings and clips "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 2 of 26 ) since the year 1962 and engine valves and engine valve components (hereinafter referred to as "goods")since the year 1993; Sh. Vijay Singh Rana has duly been authorized vide Power of Attorney dated 01.07.2015 to sign, verify and file the present case.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff company is the registered owner of the word and Logo and with respect to its goods falling under clauses 7 and 12 of the Trademark Act, 1999, in India and other countries; The details of registered trademarks under the word and Logo "USHA" in India are valid and subsisting in favour of the Plaintiff Company till dates are as under:
TRADE MARK REGN. No. CLASS 308516 07 309086 07 309092 07 "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 3 of 26 ) 310046 07 312962 06 316156 12 426689 07 USHA 426693 12
5. It is averred that plaintiff company has also obtained copyright registration of the Art works pertaining to the mark USHA and the under the word and logo "SHRIRAM" and has been registered under and the details of copyright registrations in the name of the plaintiff company which are as under:-
S.No. Registered Copyright Regn. No. A-14418/75 1 A-14419/75 2 "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 4 of 26 ) A-14620/75 3 TRADEMARK REGISTRATION OF SHRIRAM WORD AND WITH PETAL DEVICE/LOGO IN INDIA
1. 426691 04.09.1984 12 Registered
2. 426692 04.09.1984 12 Registered SHRIRAM
3. 552652 13.06.1991 06 Registered
4. 526920 27.03.1990 07 Registered
5. 552653 13.06.1991 07 Registered
6. 1860174 08.09.2009 12 Pending
7. 2938416 09.04.2015 07 Registered
8. SHRIRAM 1860175 08.09.2009 12 Pending
9. SHRIRAM 1860176 08.09.2009 07 Pending
10. 1860177 08.09.2009 07 Pending "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 5 of 26 )
6. It is the further case of the plaintiff company that the plaintiff has gathered immense goodwill and immense reputation through its trade marks "SHRIRAM" and its trademark "USHA" has been used extensively and uninterruptedly by the plaintiff company in many countries of the world including India; the plaintiff company's products are made with technical collaborations of world leaders in automotive products and its products marketed and sold under the trademark "USHA" and "SHRIRAM" are manufactured as per international standards and quality specifications; on account of the excellent quality and standards of manufacturing the goods under the trademarks "USHA" AND "SHRIRAM", the plaintiff company has done major expenditure for marketing its products and that the plaintiff has achieved unique distinctions and products of the Plaintiff under the trademarks "USHA" and "SHRIRAM" are sold on a very large and extensive scale in India; plaintiff Company's trademarks/logos "USHA" and "SHRIRAM" are printed on all packaging material of the goods manufactured by the Plaintiff Company.
"SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 6 of 26 )
7. It is averred that in the last week of September, 2018, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff company that defendant is engaged in stocking, distributing and selling and or otherwise dealing in engine valves, pistons, piston rings, piston pin with packaging of infringing products bearing the trademark "USHA", "SHRIRAM" and / or identical, deceptively and confusingly similar to the trademarks "USHA" and "SHRIRAM" of the Plaintiff Company without obtaining permission from the plaintiff's company.
8. It is further averred that the the defendant sells the infringed products at a price generally lower than the original products; the infringed products stocked, distributed and sold by the defendant is cheap imitation of the original products manufactured by the plaintiff company; the defendant by dishonestly adopting similar trademarks "USHA" and "SHRIRAM" as that of plaintiff company has infringed registered trademarks and copyright of the plaintiff company; the defendant has done its utmost to incorporate every essential feature of the plaintiff trademark/trade dress with the negligible variations "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 7 of 26 ) with sole intention of dishonestly riding on the goodwill of the plaintiff company and to cause deception and confusion in minds of the purchasing public; the act of the defendant directly and adversely affect and cause irreparable prejudice, damage and injury to the goodwill and reputation to the plaintiff.
9. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendant is selling its infringed products and earning illegal profits on account of unlawful use of the name and trademark of the plaintiff company and in this way is causing wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the plaintiff company. Hence the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendant.
10. Records would indicate that vide order dated 23.10.2018, Ld. Predecessor of this Court allowed the applications moved on of the plaintiff, one under order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC r/w section 135 of Trade Marks Act,1999 seeking temporary injunction against the defendant and another under order XXVI Rule 9 r/w section 151 CPC seeking appointment of Local Commissioner, whereby defendant and his representative were restrained "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 8 of 26 ) from using the trademarks/ trade dress identical and /or deceptively and confusingly similar to the said trademarks/tradedress "USHA" and "SHRIRAM" of the plaintiff. Local Commissioner was appointed and was further directed to seize all finished and unfinished infringed materials like piston rings, pistons pins, engine valves etc. and other accessories, labels, stickers, packaging material, tags, labels etc bearing any of plaintiff's trademark/Label and to prepare inventory of goods and material seized and subsequently release the same to the defendant on superdari and also to comply with all the directions as contained in the order dated 23.10.2018.
11. After executing the commission as directed, Local Commissioner submitted her report dated 12.11.2018, wherein it is submitted that as per the direction of the Hon'ble Court, on 24.10.2018, he along with Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and ASI Shiv Kumar went to the premises of the defendant; during the search some articles i.e 270 pieces of USHA Piston Rings and 36 pieces of Engine valve bearing trademark/logo "USHA" and "SHRI RAM"
similar to the trademark of the plaintiff, were found "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 9 of 26 ) and were accordingly seized, inventory list was prepared and articles were sealed in the presence of the counsel of plaintiff and Sh. Vikas, owner of the shop situated at first floor; seized goods were released on superdari to Vikas. Entire proceedings were photographed and thereafter report was submitted.
12. Thereafter, an application u/o I rule 10 CPC was moved by the plaintiff stating that at the time of execution by the Local Commissioner, identity of the defendant has been revealed. The application was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2018 and plaintiff was allowed to amend the name of the defendant from 'Ashok Kumar' to 'Anil'. Accordingly, an amended memo of parties was filed by the plaintiff impleading ' Anil' as defendant and summons of the suit were issued to the newly added defendant at the given address but the defendant could not be served and it was reported that the defendant is not residing at the given address.
13. On 29.03.2022, an application u/o V rule 20 CPC for service on the defendant through substituted mode of service was moved by the "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 10 of 26 ) plaintiff which was allowed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court and defendant was directed to be served through substitute mode of service by way of publication in newspaper namely " Rashtriya Sahara''. Accordingly, the defendant Anil has been served through publication in the newspaper 'Rashtriya Sahara' dated 16.04.2022 but he chose not to appear before this court, therefore, vide order dated 02.11.2022 defendant Anil was proceeded ex- parte.
14. Vide order dated 07.08.2023, Ld. Predecessor of this Court fixed the Schedule for Case Management hearing and appointed Sh. Sanjeet Malik as Ld. Court Commissioner to record the exparte plaintiff evidence.
15. Ld. Court Commissioner has filed his report dated 26.09.2023 wherein it is stated that in support of his case plaintiff has examined Sh Vijay Singh Rana as PW1, Sh. Karamjeet Singh as PW2 and Ms Anjali Chauhan as PW3.
16. PW1 Vijay Singh Rana has deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint in his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He also "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 11 of 26 ) relied upon the documents:- Copy of Certificate of Incorporation dated 25.10.1972 ExPW1/1, Copy of the Memorandum and Articles of Association ExPW1/2, Copy of the Power of Attorney dated 01.07.2015 in favour of Mr. Vijay Singh Rana ExPW1/3, Copy of Board Resolution dated 26.06.2015, Legal proceedings in respect of trademark registration no. 308516 under class 7 ExPW1/5, legal proceedings in respect of Trademark Registration No. 316156 under class 12 ExPW1/6, legal proceedings in respect of Trademark Registration No. 426692 under class 12 ExPW1/7, legal proceedings in respect of Trademark Registration No. 552652 under class 6 ExPW1/8, legal proceedings in respect of Trademark Registration No.526920 under class 7 ExPW1/9, legal proceedings in respect of Trademark Registration No. 552653 under class 7 ExPW1/10, legal proceedings in respect of Trademark Registration No. 2938416 under class 7 ExPW1/11, Copyright Registration certificate bearing No. A-14418/75 ExPW1/12, Copyright Registration certificate bearing No. 14419/75 ExPW1/13, Copyright Registration certificate bearing No. A-14620/75 ExPW1/14, photograph "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 12 of 26 ) of the original product of the plaintiff ExPW1/15, photograph of the infringing goods of the defendant bearing trademarks of the plaintiff ExPW1/16/ affidavit of investigator Bablu Singh ExPW1/17.
17. PW2 Karamjeet Singh deposed that he is associated with "Shriram Pistons & Rings Ltd as a technical expert; plaintiff company does not manufacture piston rings and engine valves in the Karol Bagh area of Delhi; defendant is not a manufacturer or authorised dealer of the plaintiff; since, the plaintiff company does not sell any products without packaging, therefore, the engine components found on the premises of the defendant are counterfeit.
18. PW3 Ms Anjali Chauhan deposed that she was appointed as Local Commissioner by the Court vide order dated 23.10.2018; pursuant to the same, she carried out the commission at T-2475, Subhash Mohalla, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi 110005 and submitted her report ExPW3/1.
19. Here it is pertinent to mention that when the present case was at the stage of exparte final "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 13 of 26 ) arguments, on 22.07.2024, an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was moved on behalf of the plaintiff praying for impleadment of one Vikas as defendant stating that inadvertently since the inventory was signed as Vikas/Anil, a request was made to implead Anil as defendant whereas Vikas was to be impleaded; notice of the application was given to the proposed defendant Vikas; defendant could not be served through ordinary mode; on an application u/o V rule 20 CPC for service on the defendant through substituted mode of service defendant was directed to be served through substitute mode of service by way of publication in newspaper namely " The Statesman''.
20. Record would indicate that on 03.09.2024, taking into consideration the facts as mentioned in the application and in the interest of justice, the application moved under order 1 Rule 10 CPC moved on behalf of the plaintiff was allowed and Vikas was impleaded as defendant and amended memo of parties was taken on record.
21. Record would further indicate that on defendant Vikas has been served through "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 14 of 26 ) publication in the newspaper 'The Statesman ' dated 23.08.2024 failed to appear before this court, therefore, vide order dated 03.09.2024 defendant Vikas was proceeded ex-parte and case was adjourned for exparte plaintiff evidence on 17.09.2024.
22. On 17.09.2024, submissions were made on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that plaintiff company does not want to lead any fresh evidence and the evidence which is already on the record led by the plaintiff company, may be considered. Accordingly, the case was adjourned for exparte final argument.
23. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has filed the written synopsis and has relied upon the following authorities:
i. Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs Navarattana Pharmaceuticlas Lab. AIR 1965 SC 980.
ii. Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Reckitt Benckiser India Limited ILR (2014) II Delhi 1288.
iii. Jockey International Inc & Anr vs. R. Chandra Mohan & Ors, 211 (2014) DLT 757. "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 15 of 26 ) iv. Christian Louboutin Sas Vs. Ashish Bansal & Anr, 2018 (75) PTC 353 (Del) v. Cartier International AG & Ors. vs. Gaurav Bhatia & Ors., 2016 (65) PTC 168 (Del) vi. PepsiCo Inc & Anr. vs. Psi Ganesh Marketing & Anr., 2014 (59) PTC 275 (Del) vii. Microsoft Corporation vs. Deepak Raval, 2006 (33) PTC 122 (Del) viii. Time Incorporated vs. Lokesh Srivastava and Anr, 2005 (30) PTC 3 (Del) ix. Super Cassettes Industries vs. Rachana Television Pvt Ltd, 2013 (55) PTC 122 (Del) x. Sandisk LLC & Anr vs. M/s B-One Mobile & Ors., 2019 (78) PTC 363 (Del) xi. Louis Vuitton Malletier vs. Capital General Store & Ors., 2023 (94) PTC 274 (Del) xii. ML Brother LLP vs. Maheshkumar Bhuralal Tanna, 2022 (91) PTC 270 (Del) xiii. Levi Strauss vs. Rajesh Agarwal, 2018 (73) PTC 290 (Del)
24. I have gone through the material available on record and heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. I have also gone through the judicial authorities as relied upon by the plaintiff.
25. Here it is pertinent to mention that, on 05.06.2024, submissions were made on behalf of the "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 16 of 26 ) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that plaintiff company is pressing the relief of Permanent injunction and damages only and is giving up the rest of the reliefs/ prayer made in the present suit. Statement of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs, in this regard, has been recorded separately.
26. Since, the plaintiff company has confined its prayer to the relief of Permanent Injunction and damages only and has given up the rest of the prayers, therefore, the rest of the prayer, as made in prayer clause of the suit have become infructuous and need not to be adjudicated upon.
27. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff company submitted that the plaintiff company is entitled to the decree, as prayed for as the testimonies of plaintiff witnesses have gone unchallenged and unrebutted as despite service of the summons, defendant has chosen not to contest the present suit. He further submitted that PW1 has duly proved on record the documents ExPW1/1 to ExPW1/17.
28. Ld counsel for the plaintiff company, while referring to the report of Local Commissioner submitted that upon search at the premises of the "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 17 of 26 ) defendant, infringed good as mentioned in the inventory list i.e Counterfeit Usha Piston Rings 270 pieces and counterfeit Engine Valve 36 pieces, were found there, which was seized and subsequently same was released to the defendant Vikas, who was present there. This also supports the story of the plaintiff that there was infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff.
29. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to note the observations of our own Hon'ble High Court made in the case of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Superior Industries Ltd. 2003 (27) PTC 63 (Del) regarding as to how infringement of trade mark is to be seen, which are as under:-
12. It is well settled that in an action for alleged infringement of a registered trade mark, if the impugned marked used by the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs, no further questions have been to be addressed and it has to be held that there is indeed an infringement. If the mark is not identical, the matter has to be further considered and it has to be seen whether the mark of the defendant is deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. Deceptive similarity means that the mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion in relation to goods in respect of which the plaintiff got its mark registered. For the purpose of this comparison, the two marks have to be compared, not by placing them side by side, but by asking the question whether having due regard to relevant surrounding circumstances, defendant's mark is similar to that of "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 18 of 26 ) the plaintiffs, as would be remembered by persons possessed of an average memory with its usual imperfections. On the touchstone of this query, it is to be determined whether the mark of the defendant is likely to deceive or cause confusion. The sequetur to the aforesaid preposition of law, is that, in an action of infringement, for the success by the plaintiff, he need not prove that the whole of his registered trade mark has been copied, but he can also succeed, if, he shows that the mark used by the defendant is similar to the mark of the plaintiff, as it would be numbered by persons possessed of an average memory with its usual imperfection or with its usual imperfection or that its essential particulars or the distinguishing or essential feature has been copied (ILR 197 (II) Delhi 225 Jagan Nath Prem Nath v. Bhartiya Dhoop Karvalaya Para- 7).
30. I may also note the observations of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi made in the case of Puma Se Versus Indiamart Intermesh Ltd.,(2024) 308 DLT 260), which are as under:
"It is essential to bear in mind that the protection afforded in respect of a trademark is both to the public as well as the proprietor of the trademark. The primary function of a trademark is to serve as a source identifier of the goods and services. It is necessary for protection of the public that when they purchase goods and services associated with the trademark, they are not deceived in any manner in accepting goods and services from a source other than that associated with the trademark. Any use of a mark, which is likely to confuse or deceive the user is impermissible and is actionable. In addition to the primary function of serving as a source identifier, the trademark also has an investment function, that is, to preserve the value of investment of the proprietor in popularising the trademark and the attendant goodwill. Extended protection is also afforded to this function of the trademark, to ensure "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 19 of 26 ) that the value of the trademark is not diluted or compromised, either by blurring or by tarnishment, by use of an identical or deceptively similar mark even though there is no likelihood of any confusion."
31. That being so, I am of the view that a balance must be struck, and it would be essential to anchor the protection available to trademarks based on the core functions of a trademark; both for the purpose of protecting the public as well as preserving the investment value of the trademark which are distinctive and have been in extensive and continuous use and thereby have acquired tremendous and unique reputation and goodwill.
32. As pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff the report given by the Ld. Local Commissioner also supports the case as set up by the plaintiff company regarding infringement of the trademark and copyright belonging to the plaintiff company. The report of the Local Commissioner can be treated as evidence in the suit if it is not challenged by the opposite party. The settled legal position is that the Local Commissioner's report can be read in evidence in terms of Order XXVI Rule 10(2) CPC. ( M L Brother LLP v. Mahesh Kumar Bhrualal "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 20 of 26 ) Tanna [CS(COMM) 126/2022], Levi Strauss & Co. v. Rajesh Agarwal 2018 IAD (Delhi) 622, Vinod Goel v. Mahesh Yadav [RFA 2022/DHC/004806 CS (COMM) 413/2021 Page 9 of 14 598/2016 decided on 23rd May, 2018).
33. In the present, as stated herein above, the defendant Vikas has chosen not to appear before this court despite the service. There is no challenge to the report given by the Ld. Local Commissioner ExPW3/1, therefore, the said report and the contents therein can be relied upon by this court as evidence to assess the even damages as the same has gone unchallenged.
34. Further, it has come on record that the copy right registration certificate bearing no.A 14418/75 ExPW12, No. A-14419/75 ExPW1/13 and No. A 14620/75 ExPW1/14 are registered in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff company is also the owner of its trademarks/logo and .
35. As stated herein above, the testimony of PW1 has also gone unrebutted and unchallenged. Plaintiff company has been able to establish that defendant "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 21 of 26 ) was copying the registered Trademark and the copyright belonging to the plaintiff company and by adoption of the identical mark and its logos as that of plaintiff company in respect of identical goods, an attempt has been made to drive unfair advantage which is bound to cause confusion and disception in the minds of the consumers and the reputation and the goodwill of the plaintiff would be at stake. Accordingly, this court is of the view that the plaintiff is also entitled to protection with respect to the said trademark as well. Therefore, in the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgments, as relied upon by the plaintiff company , this court is of the view that the plaintiff company has succeeded in proving that the defendant was manufacturing, stocking, distributing and selling goods having the counterfeit trademarks/logo of plaintiff. Hence, the trademark and the copy right of the plaintiff company needs to be protected.
36. As regards damages, the plaintiff company has claimed the damages in the sum of Rs 10,00,000/- (Rs Ten Lakh). On the issue of "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 22 of 26 ) damages, the settled legal position has been laid down in Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd., (2014) 57 PTC 495 (DB), by the Hon'ble Division Bench. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Division Bench has clearly held that unless there are extenuating circumstances and overwhelming evidence of wrong doing, punitive damages cannot be awarded. Usually, the Court grants either notional damages or the compensatory damages.
37. Further, in the case of Koninlijke Philips v.
Amazestore, 2019 DHC 2185, the Hon'ble High Court laid down certain standards for grant of damages in the following terms:
"39. Accordingly, the question which was left open in Rookes (supra) was closed in Cassell (supra) as regards the manner in which aggravated or punitive damages are to be awarded.
40. Consequently, though in assessing the aggravated damages which the Defendants should pay, the total figure awarded should be in substitution for and not in addition to the smaller figure, yet the rounded total sum shall have to be calculated by adding an additional amount to the compensatory damages.
41. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the rule of thumb that should be "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 23 of 26 ) followed while granting damages can be summarised in a chart as under:--
Sl. Degree of mala fide Conduct Proportionate award No
(i) First-time innocent infringer Injunction
(ii) First-time knowing infringer Injunction + Partial Costs
(iii) Repeated knowing infringer Injunction + Costs + which causes minor impact to Partial damages the Plaintiff
(iv) Repeated knowing infringer Injunction + Costs + which causes major impact to Aggravated the Plaintiff damages
(v) Infringement which was (Compensatory + deliberate and calculated additional damages) (Gangster/scam/mafia) + wilful contempt of court.
42. It is clarified that the above chart is illustrative and is not to be read as a statutory provision. The Courts are free to deviate from the same for good reason."
38. Adverting to the case in hand, no evidence has been led by the plaintiff in support of its claim of damages, as prayed for. However, it has come on the record that defendant was found in possession and stocking and selling infringed goods and thereby causing wrongful loss to the plaintiff company and has earned illegal profit. Considering the report of Ld. Local Commissioner and in the totality of the facts and circumstances, this court "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 24 of 26 ) deem it appropriate to award damages to the extent of Rs One Lakh to the plaintiff company against the defendant Vikas.
RELIEF
39. In view of my aforesaid discussions, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant Vikas and following reliefs are granted:-
(i.) Suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff company and against the defendant Vikas qua permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant himself and also through his partners, servants, agents, associates, affiliates, stockist and other stake holders acting for and on his behalf from manufacturing, marketing, using, selling, soliciting, importing, exporting, displaying, distributing, advertising or in any manner including online sale by using the trade mark/lebel which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark/logo and in relation to similar goods, thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trademarks/logo and copyrights in its labels and passing of the products as that of the plaintiff company .
(ii.) Plaintiff company is also entitled to recover Rs 1,00,000/- (Rs One Lakh only) from the defendant Vikas towards damages.
"SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 25 of 26 )
(iii) Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff company.
40. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
41. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance. RAJESH Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR KUMAR GOEL Date: 2024.12.21 GOEL 16:01:12 +0530 (Rajesh Kumar Goel) District Judge (Commercial)-02 Central, Tis Hazari Courts 21.12.2024 Announced in the Open Court today i.e: 21.12.2024 "SHRIRAM" Pistons and Rings Ltd vs Vikas Date of Judgment 21.12.2024 page no. 26 of 26 )