Delhi District Court
Manash Lifestyle Private Limited vs A One Cosmo on 5 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GORAKH NATH PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT),
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI.
CS (COMM.) 84/2025
CNR NO.DLNE01-001534-2025
MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD
THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
SHOP NO.C2/340, BLOCK C, YAMUNA VIHAR,
GOKALPURI, NEW DELHI - 110053.
ALSO AT:
UNIT NO.101-B, 1st FLOOR, RAHEJA PLAZA-I,
LBS MARG, GHATKOPAR (WEST),
MUMBAI - 400086, MAHARASHTRA
........ Plaintiff.
VERSUS
(1) A ONE COSMO
THROUGH ITS PROP. SH. GAGAN DEEP ARORA,
B-24, GALI NO.3, KHAJURI KHAS, BIHARI PUR,
NORTH EAST DELHI - 110094.
ALSO AT:
PLOT NO.56, SAVITA VIHAR, DELHI - 110092.
(2) FLIPKART INTERNET PVT. LTD
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/AR
BUILDING ALYSSA, BEGONIA & CLOVE
EMBASSY TECH VILLAGE, OUTER RING
ROAD, DEVARABEESANAHALLI VILLAGE,
BENGALURU - 560103, KARNATAKA.
(3) AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PVT. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR/AR
8th FLOOR, BRIGADE GATEWAY 26/1, DR. RAJ
KUMAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560055,
KARNATAKA.
CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 1 of 18
MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS.
.............. Defendants
Date of Institution : 06.06.2025
Date of final arguments : 19.12.2025
Date of decision : 05.01.2026
Decision : Decreed
JUDGMENT:-
1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking reliefs of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing and passing off Trademark; delivery and rendition of accounts etc.
2. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that the plaintiff - was incorporated in India in the year 2011. The plaintiff operates an Online Beauty and Wellness Store Purplle and offers products for both men and women. The online store offers makeup, skincare, hair, bath and body, herbal, baby care, beauty and wellness, fragrance, beauty appliances and luxury products. The online store also provides a hassle-free shopping experience, virtual makeover tools, beauty advice and assistance on the phone, free expert advice, articles on beauty and tutorials and celebrity looks.
It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is a market leader in the country and is engaged in the business of providing easy access to global beauty and wellness products. The plaintiff, Manash Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. acquired the trademarks FACES/FACESCANADA and its sub-brands including the Trademarks Magneteyes vide its Share Purchase Agreement dated 14.12.2021 from its predecessors, Faces Cosmetics and CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 2 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS. M/s. Faces Cosmetics India Pvt. Ltd. and had become the subsequent owner/proprietor of the said trademarks with their goodwill.
It is further stated in the plaint that in 2014, the plaintiff through its predecessor, Faces Cosmetics Inc. adopted the brand MAGNETEYES/magneteyes for Cosmetics and Skin Care Products as a sub-brand of the main brand Faces/Facescanada. The brand "MAGNETEYES" has been used continuously and uninterruptedly by the predecessor of the plaintiff since 2014 and later, the plaintiff acquired the trademarks through the Share Purchase Agreement and the plaintiff is using the same.
It is alleged that in January, 2025, the plaintiff was shocked when one of its representatives while casually browsing the internet, came across a product being advertised and offered for sale under the name CUTIE BEAUTY MAGNETEYES DRAMATIC VOLUMIZING MASCARA by the defendant no.1 on the prominent e-commerce platforms operated by defendant no.2 Flipkart and defendant no.3 Amazon. The use of term MAGNETEYES in connection with goods, specifically Mascara, immediately raised concern, as the same is a registered trademark of the plaintiff used extensively in relation to its own range of mascara products. In order to verify the nature and authenticity of the impugned product, the plaintiff through its representative placed order for the said mascara through the Flipkart platform. The order was placed under Invoice dated 19.01.25 and the product was duly delivered on 21.01.2025 in Delhi. Upon CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 3 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS. physical inspection of the product, its packaging and overall trade-dress, it came to know that the defendant no.1 had not only unlawfully adopted the registered trademark MAGNETEYES of the plaintiff but also reproduced the tagline DRAMATIC VOLUMIZING MASCARA in a manner which was deceptively similar to the original product of the plaintiff. The Defendant No. 1 is unlawfully using the registered trademark MAGNETEYES of the Plaintiff without any permission, license, or authorization from the Plaintiff. The adoption and use of the said mark by the Defendant No. 1 is a calculated and dishonest attempt to exploit the goodwill and reputation built by the Plaintiff in the trademark MAGNETEYES. The Defendant No. 2 (Flipkart) and the Defendant No. 3 (Amazon) are leading e-commerce platforms in India, having mechanisms and internal policies for listing, verifying and regulating products and sellers on their platforms. The genuine and authorized MAGNETEYES products of the Plaintiff have been regularly sold on both these platforms for several years through verified sellers and listings. Despite this, both the Defendants No. 2 and 3 have permitted and continue to permit the listing, display and sale of counterfeit and infringing products under the name CUTIE BEAUTY MAGNETEYES DRAMATIC VOLUMIZING MASCARA offered by Defendant No. 1, who has no connection whatsoever with the Plaintiff or its business. The continued hosting of such infringing listings by the Defendant No. 2 and 3 reflects an apparent failure of their legal obligation to exercise due diligence, particularly in light of the pre-existing presence of the genuine MAGNETEYES products of CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 4 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS. the Plaintiff on their platforms. The plaintiff therefore filed the present suit against the defendants with the following prayers:
(a) A Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1, its directors, executives, partners, or proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants and agents or any other persons acting for and on their behalf from launching, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising, marketing and/or in any manner using directly or indirectly under the registered trademark MAGNETEYES of the Plaintiff or any other identical and/or deceptively similar brand, logo or tagline DRAMATIC VOLUMIZING MASCARA, which are identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark MAGNETEYES of the Plaintiff, amounting to infringement of the registered trademark MAGNETEYES of the Plaintiff;
(b) A Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1, its directors, executives, partners, or proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants and agents or any other persons acting for and on their behalf from launching, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising, marketing and/or in any manner using directly or indirectly under the registered trademark MAGNETEYES or any packaging of Products under the brand MAGENTEYES or any other identical and/or deceptively similar brand, logo or tagline DRAMATIC VOLUMIZING MASCARA, which is identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark MAGNETEYES of the Plaintiff or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to its business, unregistered proprietary product names, the CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 5 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS.
packaging, product content and description and promotional images of the Products under the Trade Marks MAGNETEYES of the Plaintiff or doing any other thing which will lead to Passing Off of the goods of the Defendant No. 1 as those of the Plaintiff;
(c) A Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1, its directors, executives, partners, or proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants and agents or any other persons acting for and on their behalf from launching, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising, marketing and/or in any manner using directly or indirectly under the registered trademark MAGNETEYES or any packaging of Products under the brand MAGENTEYES or any other identical and/or deceptively similar mark, brand, logo or tagline DRAMATIC VOLUMIZING MASCARA, which are identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark MAGNETEYES of the Plaintiff or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to its business, unregistered proprietary product names, the packaging and promotional images of the Products under the brand MAGENTEYES of the Plaintiff or doing any other thing amounting to dilution of the trademarks of the Plaintiff mentioned in the Plaint including but not limited to registered trademark MAGNETEYES of the Plaintiff;
(d) A Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No.1, its directors, executives, partners, or proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants and agents or any other persons acting for and on their behalf from launching, CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 6 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS. manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising, marketing and/or in any manner using directly or indirectly under the registered trademark MAGNETEYES or any packaging of Products under the brand MAGNETEYES or any other identical and/or deceptively similar mark, brand, logo or tagline DRAMATIC VOLUMIZING MASCARA of the Plaintiff or any other deceptively similar mark in relation to its business, unregistered proprietary product names, the packaging and promotional images of the Products under the brand MAGNETEYES of the Plaintiff or doing any other thing amounting to unfair competition;
(e) A Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant No. 1, its directors, executives, partners, or proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants and agents or any other persons acting for and on their behalf from launching, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising, marketing and/or in any manner reproducing and replicating the content of the packaging, description and promotional images of Products under the brand MAGNETEYES of the Plaintiff and from the products of the Plaintiff available on the website of the Plaintiff and e-commerce platforms;
(f) A Decree for delivery up of all the labels, cartons, brochures, packets, dies, packaging, stationery, carry bags, price stickers, visiting cards, billboards, brochures, promotional material, point of sale material, letterheads, cash memos, sign boards, signposts leaflets and any other document or goods CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 7 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS. bearing the registered trademark MAGNETEYES or any packaging of Products under the brand MAGNETEYES or any other identical and/or deceptively similar mark to registered trademark MAGNETEYES and the packaging and promotional images of Products under the brand MAGNETEYES or any other identical and/or deceptively similar mark, brand, logo or tagline DRAMATIC VOLUMIZING MASCARA to the authorized representative of the Plaintiff for the purpose of destruction/ erasure;
(g) A Decree for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the Defendant No.1 on account of the sale of the products bearing the registered trademark MAGNETEYES or any packaging of Products under the brand MAGNETEYES or any other identical and/or deceptively similar mark to registered trademark MAGNETEYES of the Plaintiff and the packaging and promotional images of Products under the brand MAGNETEYES and a Decree for the amount so found due be passed in favour of the Plaintiff;
(h) Restraining the Defendant No. 1 from disposing off or dealing with their assets including their premises at the addresses mentioned in the Memo of Parties and their stocks-in-trade 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 Defendant No. 1 disclosure thereof and which the Defendant No. 1 are called upon to disclose and/or on its ascertainment 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 CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 8 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS. affect the ability of the Plaintiff to recover the costs and pecuniary reliefs thereon.
(i) for an order directing the e-commerce websites, Defendant No. 2 and 3 to permanently block/ remove/ suspend the listings' URLs of the Defendant No. 1 mentioned above from their platforms.
(j) for an order for the costs of the proceedings and
(k) for such other and further relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case.
3. Defendant no.1 failed to file the written statement within the stipulated time as per Commercial Courts Act, 2015, hence, the defence of the defendant no.1 was struck off vide order dated 28.10.2025.
4. The defendant no.2 i.e. Flipkart filed the written statement contending that it owns, operates and manages the online marketplace at www.flipkar.com wherein lacks of third party sellers and buyers interact and conduct their transactions and as such is as an 'intermediary' in terms of Section 2(1) (w) of Information Technology Act, 2022. The defendant no.2 denied the allegations made against the defendant no.2 in the plaint and praying for dismissal of the suit against the defendant no.2.
5. The defendant no.3 i.e. Amazon who is also an intermediary under the Information Technology Act, 2000 filed CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 9 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS. the written statement denying all the allegations made against the defendant no.3 in the plaint and praying to dismiss the case against the defendant no.3.
6. Vide order dated 28.10.2025, following issues was framed for adjudication of the case:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? ...OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of accounts as prayed for ? OPP
(iii) Relief.
7. The evidence in this case was recorded before the Local Commissioner appointed vide order dated 28.10.2025. The plaintiff examined its AR Sh. Ms. Mana Dey as PW1 vide his affidavit Ex.PW1/A who deposed as per the averments in the plaint and also relied upon the following documents:
(1) Special Power of Attorney dated 29.07.24 executed by the authorized signatory of the plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/1. (2) Certificate u/s 63 of BSA as Ex.PW1/2.
(3) Comparison chart of the genuine product of the plaintiff and the impugned product of the defendant no.1 with the invoice dated 19.01.25 raised by the defendant no.1 as Ex.PW1/3 (Colly).
(4) Certificate of the incorporation of the plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/4.
(5) Share purchase agreement dated 14.12.21 as CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 10 of 18
MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS. Ex.PW1/5.
(6) The said mark is also expressly mentioned in schedule 2, page 42 of the share purchase agreement forming part of the Indian Trademark list as Ex.PW1/5.
(7) The trademark applications, journal extracts and Registration certificates for the registered trademark MAGNETEYES of the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/6 (Colly). (8) Receipt issued by the trade marks registry evidencing payment for certified copies and legal proceeding certificates as Ex.PW1/7.
(9) Copies of the listings showing the products of the plaintiff under the trademark MAGNETEYES being sold on the e-commerce platform as Ex.PW1/8.
(10) The screenshots and analytics of the official social media accounts of FACESCANADA evidencing such promotion as Ex.PW1/9 (Colly).
(11) The article featuring Yami Gautam endorsing the brand FACESCANADA of the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/10 (Colly). (12) Copies of the third party online articles and features published between 2015 and 2025 evidencing the popularity and coverage of the brand/trademark MAGNETEYES as Ex.PW1/11. (13) The copy of the google search results and analytics showing the online popularity of the trademark MAGNETEYES as Ex.PW1/12.
(14) Copy of the google search showing PURPLE store of the plaintiff as Ex.PW1/13.
(15) Copy of injunction order dated 09.04.24 passed by the CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 11 of 18
MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS. DJ Comm, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as Ex.PW1/14. (16) The screenshots and printouts of the infringing listings of CUTIE BEAUTY MAGNETEYES on flipkart and Amazon as Ex.PW1/15 (Colly).
(17) The printout of the GST details of the defendant no.1 evidencing its business activities as Ex.PW1/16.
8. The defendants no.2 and 3 chosen not to lead any evidence as they are intermediaries and performa parties only.
9. I have heard the final arguments addressed by the counsel for the plaintiff and counsel for defendants no.2 & 3. None appeared for the defendant no.1 to address final arguments. I have also gone through the records as well. I have also gone through the written arguments filed by the parties. My issue-wise findings are as under:
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for? ...OPP
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of rendition of accounts as prayed for ? OPP
10. It is now well settled / laid down by our own Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Superior Industries Ltd. 2003 (27) PTC 63 (Del) as to how infringement of trade mark is to be seen, to quote:-
12.It is well settled that in an action for alleged infringement of a registered trade mark, if the impugned marked used by the CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 12 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS.
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 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).
11. The brief and relevant facts for filing of the case has been mentioned at the outset. Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines "burden of proof" which is reproduced as below:-
"101. Burden of proof- whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person."
Section 101 of the Evidence Act has clearly laid down that the burden of proving a fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts. Until such burden is discharged, the other CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 13 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS. party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden lies has been liable to discharge his burden. Until he arrives at such conclusion he cannot proceed on the basis of weakness of other party. Further, Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act contained that no fact need to be proved in any proceedings which parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands or which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.
12. It is well settled that a suit has to be tried on the basis of the pleadings of the contesting parties which is filed in the suit in the form of plaint and written statement and the nucleus of the case of the plaintiff and the contesting case of the defendant in the form of issues emerges out of that. Being a civil suit, this suit is to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.
In the case of Raj Kumar Singh & Anr. Vs. Jagjit Chawla, reported in 183 (2011) DLT 418, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was pleased to observe as under:-
"A civil case is decided on balance of probabilities. The balance of probabilities in the present case shows that the Power of Attorney Ex. PW3/1 and the Will Ex. P-1 were duly executed by the deceased Sh. Sohan Singh. The Power of Attorney is after all a registered Power of Attorney, and more importantly, the original title documents of the subject property are in the possession of the respondent No. 1 and which would not have been, if there was not to be any transfer of title in the suit property. Merely because two views are possible, this court CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 14 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS.
would not interfere with one possible and plausible view which is taken by the court below, unless such view causes grave injustice. In my opinion, in fact, grave injustice will be caused not to the objectors/appellants but to the respondent No. 1 her father-in-law Sh. Sewa Singh, if the impugned judgment is set aside."
In the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma Vs. Daya Sapra, reported in (2009) 13 SCC 729, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
''8. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that a creditor can maintain a civil and criminal proceedings at the same time. Both the proceedings, thus, can run parallel. The fact required to be proved for obtaining a decree in the civil suit and a judgment of conviction in the criminal proceedings may be overlapping but the standard of proof in a criminal case vis-a- vis a civil suit, indisputably is different. Whereas in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of the offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, in a civil suit "preponderance of probability" would serve the purpose for obtaining a decree".
13. The relevant Section 103 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which cast onus on the parties to prove their contention is also reproduced for ready reference as under:
Section 103 Evidence Act, 1872: Burden of Proof as to particular fact The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person. Illustration:
(a) A prosecutes B for theft, and wishes the Court to believe that B admitted the theft to C. A must prove the admission.
B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.
14. I have gone through all the documents filed and proved by PW1. The plaintiff alleged that its trademark was CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 15 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS. infringed by the defendant no.1 and hence this suit was filed. The PW1 filed his affidavit by way of evidence and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The witness was not cross-
examined and his testimony remained unimpeached/uncontroverted. The defendant no.1 has failed to put its defence on record. I have also seen the artistic layout of the packaging of both the brands which appear to be deceptively similar to confirm infringement of the trademark MAGNETEYES of the plaintiff by the defendant no.1. The defendants no.2 & 3 are the intermediaries and performa parties only.
The plaintiff alleged to suffer damages on account of use of trademark by the defendant no.1 but no such record is filed to prove any damages suffered by the plaintiff. Even the plaintiff has not filed any data of sale by the defendant no.1 to the customers. In view of the absence of empirical data, the claim of the plaintiff regarding the damages and rendition of account appears to be without any basis.
15. The testimony of the PW1 examined by the plaintiff and the documents on record reaches to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved that the defendant no.1 is selling/soliciting the impugned products bearing the registered Trademark MAGNETEYES of the plaintiff by using the e-commerce platforms of the defendant no.2 & 3.
CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 16 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS.
16. In view of the testimony of PW1 examined by the plaintiff and documents on record, aforementioned discussions and examining the case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, this court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has proved the issue no.(1). Issue No.(1) is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 whereas issue no.(2) is decided against the plaintiff. Relief:
17. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 qua permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendant no.1 its directors, executives, partners or proprietors, officers, servants and agents or any other persons acting for and on behalf of the defendant no.1 from launching, manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising, marketing and/or in any manner using directly or indirectly under the registered trademark MAGNETEYES of the plaintiff or any other identical and/or deceptively similar brand, logo or tagline DRAMATIC VOLUMIZING MASCARA which are identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark MAGNETEYES of the plaintiff amounting to infringement of plaintiff's registered trademark MAGNETEYES of the plaintiff. Further, the defendant no.2 & 3 are directed to permanently block/remove/suspend the listings URLs of the defendant no.1 from their e-commerce websites/platforms having the trademark 'MAGNETEYES'.
CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 17 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS.
18. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to the costs of the suit also.
19. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
20. Judgment be also uploaded on the server.
21. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. GORAKH Digitally signed by GORAKH NATH PANDEY NATH Date: 2026.01.07 PANDEY 15:52:06 +0530 Announced in the open court (GORAKH NATH PANDEY) on 05 January, 2026.
th District Judge (Commercial Court) North East: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS (Comm) 84/2025 Page No. 18 of 18 MANASH LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. VS. A ONE COSMO & ORS.