Delhi District Court
Guddu Gupta Trading As Ms Leela ... vs Kalia Gupta And Ors on 2 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GORAKH NATH PANDEY
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT),
NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI.
CS (COMM.) 41/2025
CNR NO.DLNE01-000735-2025
GUDDU GUPTA,
TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS
HOUSE NO.162, E-BLOCK, GALI NO.8,
KHAJURI KHAS, DELHI - 110094.
ALSO AT:
E-253-A, 12, KHAJURI KHAS,
NORTH EAST DELHI,
DELHI - 110094.
........ Plaintiff.
VERSUS
(1) PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA),
TRADING AS M/S. GUPTA COSMETICS,
2265-66, MAIN GUNJ, ANAJ MANDI,
SADAR BAZAR, OPP. ICICI BANK,
DELHI - 110006.
(2) CHANDAN SAH,
QUILA KADIM, PAHARGANJ,
DELHI - 110006.
(3) RAMESH SAH,
H.NO.6871/3, QUILA KADAM SHARIF,
NABI KARIM, PAHARGANJ,
CENTRAL DELHI - 110055.
(4) REKHA DEVI,
H.NO.6871/3, QUILA KADAM SHARIF,
NABI KARIM, PAHARGANJ,
CENTRAL DELHI - 110055.
............. Defendants
CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 1 of 22
GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA
GUPTA) AND ORS.
Date of Institution : 21.03.2025
Date of final arguments : 28.04.2026
Date of decision : 02.05.2026
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; copyright, piracy of design, delivery and rendition of accounts, damages etc.
2. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, is that the plaintiff is carrying his business in the name and style of M/s. Leela Cosmetics and engaged in the trade and business of manufacturing and marketing of cosmetics including but not limited to sindoor, liquid sandoor, powder sindoor, stick sindoor, liquid kumkum, lipsticks, lop gloss, kajal, liquid lipstick, lip balm, eyeliner, mascara, eye shadow, lip liner, nail polish remover, nail art, body lotion, foundation, hair oil, hair gel, cold cream, skin powder, hair remover, face wash, rose water, shampoo, beauty creams make-up creams, skin care products, bleach cream and powers, soap and detergents, perfume, mehandi, hair dye etc. falling in Class 3 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017. It is stated that the plaintiff coined, conceived and adopted Roop Lady as a trademark/label and Leela Cosmetics as a trade name in the year 2006 which is inherently distinctive and distinguishable to the goods and services of others. It is further stated that plaintiff has adopted different variants of CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 2 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
trademarks/labels Roop and using the same since the year 2006.
It is averred that word mark "ROOPLADY" under the application no.1894845 for Bindi in Class 3 was registered in the name of Mr. Muhammad Juned trading as M/s. Suzuki Fancy which was taken by the plaintiff through an assignment deed dated 28.01.2020. It is stated that the plaintiff has designed a unique shape and configuration of the bottle/tube of the sindoor stick which makes the design of the aforesaid bottle very new and novel and got the design of bottle registered on 12.10.2019 vide certificate no.321567-001 in Class 09-01. The plaintiff's product Roop Lady are highly demanded in the markets and have acquired a vast reputation thereunder.
It is further averred that the plaintiff is the proprietor, prior and senior user of its said trade name/mark/label and owner of the registered design. It is claimed that the business carried on the plaintiff is very extensive and distributed in major parts of the country. The plaintiff's goods/services and business under the said trade name/mark/label have acquired tremendous goodwill and envious reputation in the market and the plaintiff has already built up a handsome and valuable trade thereunder. The plaintiff has widely advertised the said trademark/label/design by prominently displaying the same circulating pamphlets and catalogues as well as distributing of attractive display boards bearing the said trademark/label. The plaintiff has also continuously promoting the sale of its goods and business under the trademark through different media and modes i.e. CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 3 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
advertisement in newspaper, trade magazines, social media platforms, distribution of trade literature's, trade novelties, sales promotional schemes as well as through its websites https://leelacosmetics.com, https://www.rooplady.com and third party web portals namely www.jusdial.com, https://www.flipkart.com and www.indiamart.com.
It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff's trademark/label ROOP LADY, ROOP LEELA and trade name LEELA COSMETICS, other ROOP variants and design of bottle sticks of sindoor has already become distinctive and well known trademark/label within the meaning of Section 2(1) (zg) and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
It is further the case of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 trading as M/s. Gupta Cosmetics, defendant no.2 Chandan Sah, defendant no.3 Ramesh Sah and defendant no.4 Rekha Devi are relatives and engaged in the same nature of business. It is stated that defendant no.1 & 2 have adopted identical/deceptively similar trademark/label/trade dress "ROOP LADY" and design of bottle of sticks of sindoor in relation to manufacturing and marketing of cosmetics including but not limited to sindoor, liquid sindoor, powder sindoor, stick sindoor, liquid kumkum etc. It is further stated that defendant no.3 adopted the trademark KISS LOVE which is assigned to Rekha Devi (defendant no.4) through FORM TM-P with the identical design of the registered proprietor of said design but the plaintiff has no objection with the trademark KISS LOVE and has only concern with the CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 4 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
impugned design being used by defendant no.3 and 4 for said trade mark.
It is averred that defendants are infringing the rights of plaintiff by adopting the identical trademarks, trade dress/packaging/design as that of plaintiff. It is stated that defendant no.1 and 2 not only involved in infringement of said trade mark/label/trade dress/design of the plaintiff but also indulged in the counterfeiting of plaintiff's said trade mark/label/trade dress/design. The defendants have no proprietary rights for impugned trademark/label Roop Lady and design of bottle of sticks of sindoor in relation to impugned goods.
It is further stated in the plaint that an FIR No.1162/24 has been registered against defendant no.2 on 26.10.24 at PS Sadar Bazar u/s 63 and 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 and pursuant to search warrant dated 29.11.24 passed by court of Ld. ACJM, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 13.12.2024, a search was conducted at Gupta Cosmetics Shop in the presence of complaint and shop owner and the counterfeit items of "ROOP LADY"
was found, which was seized.
It is further stated in the plaint that the defendants adopted and started using the impugned trademark/label/design in respect of the impugned goods and business out of positive greed and with a view to take advantage and to trade upon the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff and further to calculate confusion and deception in the market and to pass off their CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 5 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
impugned goods and business as those of the plaintiff and to make easy money at the cost of the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation. The plaintiff therefore filed the present suit against the defendants with the following prayers:
(a) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants by themselves as also through their directors, proprietors, individual proprietor, partners (if any), agents, servants, assigns, representatives, successors, legal heirs, distributors and all others acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, using, selling, exporting, offering for sale, advertising or displaying directly or indirectly or dealing in any other manner or mode in cosmetics including but not limited to sindoor, liquid sindoor, powder sindoor, stick sindoor, liquid kamkum, lipstick, lip gloss, kajal, liquid lipstick, lip balm, eye liner, mascara, eye shadow, lip liner, nail polish remover, nail art, body lotion, foundation, hair oil, hair gel, cold cream, skin powder, hair remover, face wash, rose water, shampoo, beauty creams, make-up, creams, skin care products, bleach cream and powders, soap and detergents, perfume, mehandi, hair dye etc. goods in class 3 of the schedule and all allied and cognate goods under the impugned trademark/tradedress/label/packaging ROOP LADY and design of bottle of sticks of Sindoor or any other trademark/tradedress/label/packaging and design of sticks of Sindoor identical with or deceptively similar to the trademark/tradedress/label/packaging/design of the plaintiff amounting to or resulting in:-
CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 6 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
(i).Infringement of the plaintiff's registered said well known trademark/tradedress/label/packaging ROOP LADY;
(ii).Infringement of the plaintiff's registered copyright involved in the said trademark/tradedress/label/packaging ROOP LADY;
(iii). Infringement of the Plaintiff's said registered design bearing no.321567-001 in class 09-01;
(iv). Piracy of the Plaintiff's said registered design bearing no, 321567-001 in class 09-01;
(v). Passing off and violation of the plaintiff's said trademark/trade dress/label/packaging ROOP LADY and registered design of sticks of Sindoor and other ROOP variant trademarks;
(B). For an order for delivery up of ali the defendants impugned goods and business bearing the impugned trademark/tradedress/label/packaging including packing material, carton boxes, blisters, carry bags, finished and unfinished goods, boxes, stickers having impugned design or any other incriminating material including display boards and trade literature to the plaintiff for the purpose of destructions/erasure. (C). For an order of rendition of account of the defendants by their aforesaid impugned trade activities and a decree to the plaintiff on the amount so ascertained.
(D) In the alternative to the rendition of accounts, for a decree of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac Only) on account of damages sustained by the Plaintiff due to the impugned acts of the Defendants to the Plaintiff.
CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 7 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
(E) For such further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
3. The defendant nos.1 to 4 filed the joint written statement denying all the allegations made against them in the plaint. It is stated in the written statement that the defendants have not infringed upon any trademark, copyright, design of the plaintiff as claimed in the suit. It is submitted that the plaintiff had business relations with the defendants for the last eight years and the said fact has been concealed by the plaintiff from this court which shifts the balance of convenience in favour of the defendants. The plaintiff misled this court into recognizing a fictitious history of prior use of the trademark by using fabricated documents. It is further submitted that the plaintiff's design registration for the liquid sindoor bottle obtained in 2019 is invalid and liable to be cancelld under the Designs Act, 2000 due to prior publication that negates its claimed novelty. It is further submitted that the design is common to the trade, with multiple third parties having manufactured, sold and used bottles with the same or substantially similar design for years further destroying its originality under Section 4 (b). It is further submitted that the plaintiff's claim that the defendant's product featuring a 5-flower design on the bottle is counterfeit because it differs from their registered 4-flower design is misleading and unsustainable rather the plaintiff themselves sell bottles with both 4 petal flower and 5 CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 8 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
petal flower designs as evidenced by their own product offerings. It is further submitted that there is no person under the name of Kalia Gupta. In parawise reply, the defendants denied all the contents of the plaint and lastly prayer is made to dismiss the suit.
4. In the replication, the plaintiff reiterated the contentions mentioned in the plaint and denied the averments of defendants in the written statement.
5. Vide order dated 18.07.2025, following issues were framed for adjudication of the case:
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of injunctions, as prayed in para no.34(A) (i) to (v)? ...OPP (2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of rendition of account or in the alternative for a decree of damages of Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed? ..OPP (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for delivery of all the impugned/counterfeit goods found by the Local Commissioner during the execution of commission? ...OPP (4) Whether plaintiff has made false statements on oath or has filed false affidavit of truth? ..OPD (5) Relief.
6. The evidence in this case was recorded before the Local Commissioner appointed vide order dated 15.10.2025. The CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 9 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
plaintiff examined himself as PW1 vide his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and deposed as per the averments in the plaint. He also relied upon the following documents:
(1) Representation of plaintiff's TM/Label/Packaging/Trade dress as Mark A. (2) Representation of defendant's TM/Label/Packaging/Trade dress as Mark B. (3) GST Registration of plaintiff dated 26.07.2018 as Ex.PW1/3.
(4) ISO Registration certificate dated 29.07.2017 as Ex.PW1/4.
(5) Trade Mark Status, Registration Certificate as Mark - C (Colly).
(6) Assignment deed dated 28.01.2020 as Ex.PW1/6 (OSR).
(7) Copyright Registration Certificate bearing no.A-123574/2018 dated 30.01.2018 of plaintiff as Ex.PW1/7. (8) Copyright Registration Certificate bearing no.A-143159/2022 dated 23.08.22 of plaintiff as Mark D. (9) Design Registration Certificate of plaintiff dated 12.09.2019 as Ex.PW1/8.
(10) Legal Proceeding Certificate/Receipt w.r.t. 1894845 dated 11.12.2009 as Mark E. (11) Registration of declaration of Trade, trade name and trade description of M/s Leela Cosmetics as Ex.PW1/10.
(12) Hand written original Independent Leaflet of Cash CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 10 of 22
GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
Memo/Bill (Bill Book not produced) of the plaintiff document from page no.81-94 for the period 04.03.2006 till 01.07.18 as Ex.PW1/11 (Colly).
(13) Hand written original Independent Leaflet of GST invoices (Bill Book not produced) of the plaintiff documents from page no.104-117 for the period 29.07.2019 till 26.05.20 as Ex.PW1/11A.
(14) Computer typed duplicate GST invoice of the plaintiff (document stamped but no signed) document from page no.97- 103 for the period 15.05.2019 till 15.07.19 as Mark F (Colly). (15) Computer typed bill of supply (Original for recipients) ("This is a computer generated invoice" - mentioned in the above bill of supply) document from page no.118-128 for the period 27.07.22 till 04.01.23 as Ex.PW1/11B (Colly). (16) Plaintiff sales figure's (CA Certified) for the period from 2018-2023 as Mark G. (17) Screenshots of Third party websites as Ex.PW1/13 (Colly).
(18) Certified copy of judgment dated 18.01.2025 passed in CS (Comm) 110/2023 in case titled as Guddu Gupta vs. Suraj Gupta and Surrender Mehta as Ex.PW1/14.
(19) Certified copy of judgment dated 22.08.2023 passed in CS (Comm) 106/2019 in case titled as Guddu Gupta vs. Subhash Kumar as Ex.PW1/14A.
(20) Copy of judgment dated 11.11.2023 passed in CS (Comm) 166/2020 in titled Hindustan Uniliver Ltd. Pappu Gupta CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 11 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
@ Kalia Gupta as Mark H. (21) Seizure memo in FIR No.1162/2024 dated 26.10.24 PS Sadar Bazar conducted at Gupta Cosmetic Shop No.2265-66, Maid Ganj, Anaaz Mandi, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi - 110006 as Ex.PW1/16.
7. The plaintiff summoned PW2 Mr. Sumit Kumar working as an examiner of patents and design Group-A Gazetted, Office at Intellectual Property Building, Plot No.32, Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 who deposed as under:
"I am summoned witness and I have brought the records of certified copy of certificate of registration of design having design no.321567-001 which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/8 dated 22.11.2025 and same is taken on record".
8. The plaintiff further summoned PW3 Mr. Robin Singh Chauhan, Working as LDC, Trademark Registry, Office at Intellectual Property Building, Plot No.32, Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078. He brought the summoned record and proved the LPC of the trademark applications no.3415170, 3476857, 4266797, 4296440, 4395660, 5049858, 1894845, 5060619, 4395658 and 3312356 as Ex.PW3/1 (Colly).
9. The plaintiff also summoned Mr. Pragya Nand Shukla, Working as Examiner of Trademark, GI and Copyright CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 12 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
posted at Copyright Office at Intellectual Property Building, Plot No.32, Sector-14, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110078 who brought the summoned record i.e. certified copy of records of Copyright registration no.A - 143159/2022 dated 22.11.2025 as Ex.PW4/1 and Copyright Registration no.A-123574/2018 as Ex.PW1/7.
10. In rebuttal, the defendant no.1 examined himself as DW1 vide his affidavit Ex.DW1/A and deposed as per the averments in the written statement. He also relied upon the following documents (1) Authority letter dated 09.04.2025 issued by defendant no.2-4 as Ex.DW1/1.
(2) Sample invoices issued by the plaintiff to the defendants from the years 2021-2023 as Mark A (Colly). (3) Plaintiff trade mark registration for LAGAN label under no.3024244 dated 05.08.2015 as Ex.DW1/3. (4) Plaintiff trade mark registration for LAGAN label under no.4395455 dated 02.01.2020 as Ex.DW1/4. (5) Plaintiff trade mark registration for LEELA COSMETICS Device under no.4395659 dated 02.01.20 as Ex.DW1/5.
(6) Plaintiff trade mark registration for LEELA COSMETICS Device under no.5835971 dated 04.03.2023 as Ex.DW1/6.
(7) Affidavit dated 09.04.2025 under Section 63 (4) of BSA, 2023 as Ex.DW1/7.
CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 13 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
(8) Images of third party products using identical design bottle as Mark B. (9) Images of third party products using identical design bottle as Ex.DW1/8 (Colly).
11. I have heard the final arguments addressed by the counsel for the plaintiff. I have also gone through the records as well. I have also gone through the written arguments filed by the counsel for the parties in support of their contentions alognwith the case laws relied therein. My issue-wise findings are as under:
ISSUES NO.1 to 4:
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of injunctions, as prayed in para no.34(A) (i) to (v)? ...OPP (2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of rendition of account or in the alternative for a decree of damages of Rs.5,00,000/- as claimed? ..OPP (3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for delivery of all the impugned/counterfeit goods found by the Local Commissioner during the execution of commission? ...OPP (4) Whether plaintiff has made false statements on oath or has filed false affidavit of truth? ..OPD
12. It is now well settled/laid down by our own Hohgmhg3fn'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 CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 14 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
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 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).
13. 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."
CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 15 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
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 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.
14. 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 CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 16 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
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 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".
15. 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.
CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 17 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
B wishes the Court to believe that, at the time in question, he was elsewhere. He must prove it.
16. All these issues shall be decided together being interrelated and connected. I have gone through all the documents filed and proved by the parties. The plaintiff alleged that its trademark and designed have been infringed by the defendants and hence this suit was filed. On the other hand, the defendants claimed that the parties had business relations and the defendants have been acting as a distributor/dealer of the plaintiff's goods since the year 2016. The PW1 filed his affidavit by way of evidence and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The plaintiff further summoned the witnesses PW2 to PW4 and the said witnesses proved the registration of design; LPC and Copyright registration of the plaintiffs respectively. There is nothing in the cross-examination of PW1 to controvert the claim of the plaintiff rather the testimony of PW1 in material aspects remained unimpeached/uncontroverted. The testimony of PW2 to PW4 also remained uncontroverted as the said witnesses were not cross-examined by the defendants. It is an admitted fact that the parties had business relations and the defendants used to work as distributor/dealer of the plaintiff. It is further admitted in the written statement that the defendants have no proprietary rights for the impugned trademark/label Roop Lady and design of bottle of sticks of Sindoor in relation to the impugned goods. It is further submitted in the written statement that the remaining goods later seized and sealed during the Local Commission's CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 18 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
executed on 29.03.2025, belonged to the same batches previously procured from the plaintiff as no new products were acquired thereafter. The counsel for the defendants during arguments submitted that the defendants are not manufacturing/marketing the goods having the identical trademark of the plaintiff i.e. "ROOP LADY" nor the identical registered design of the plaintiff. Considering the admission in the written statement that the defendants have no proprietary rights on the impugned trademark/label Roop Lady and design of bottle of sticks of Sindoor in relation to the impugned goods, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for. There is nothing in the cross-examination of DW1 to deny the claim of the plaintiff.
In view of the testimony of the witnesses examined by the parties 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). The issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
17. The plaintiff alleged to suffer damages on account of use of trademark/designed by the defendants 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 defendants to the customers. In view of the absence of empirical data, the claim of CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 19 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
the plaintiff regarding rendition of account appears to be without any basis. The issue no.2 is accordingly decided against the plaintiff.
18. As regards the delivery of all the impugned/counterfeit goods found by the Local Commissioner during the execution of commission is concerned, it is submitted in the written statement that the goods seized during the police raid are the plaintiff's own products supplied to the defendants under the established relationship. In view of the same, the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of all the impugned goods seized by the Local Commissioner. The issue no.3 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
19. The onus to prove the issue no.4 was on the defendants. Nothing has been brought on record by the defendants to prove the said issue. The issue is accordingly decided against the defendants.
Relief:-
20. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants qua permanent injunction. Defendants their directors, proprietors, individual proprietor, partners (if any), agents, servants, assigns, representatives, successors, legal heirs, distributors and all others acting for and on their behalf from CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 20 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
manufacturing, using, selling, exporting, offering for sale, advertising or displaying directly or indirectly or dealing in any other manner or mode in cosmetics including but not limited to sindoor, liquid sindoor, powder sindoor, stick sindoor, liquid kamkum, lipstick, lip gloss, kajal, liquid lipstick, lip balm, eye liner, mascara, eye shadow, lip liner, nail polish remover, nail art, body lotion, foundation, hair oil, hair gel, cold cream, skin powder, hair remover, face wash, rose water, shampoo, beauty creams, make-up, creams, skin care products, bleach cream and powders, soap and detergents, perfume, mehandi, hair dye etc. goods in class 3 of the schedule and all allied and cognate goods under the impugned trademark/tradedress/label/packaging ROOP LADY and design of bottle of sticks of Sindoor or any other trademark/tradedress/label/packaging and design of sticks of Sindoor identical with or deceptively similar to the trademark/tradedress/label/packaging/design of the plaintiff amounting to or resulting in infringement of the plaintiff's registered said well known trademark/tradedress/label/packaging ROOP LADY; infringement of the plaintiff's registered copyright involved in the said trademark/tradedress/label/packaging ROOP LADY; infringement of the Plaintiff's said registered design bearing no.321567-001 in class 09-01; piracy of the Plaintiff's said registered design bearing no, 321567-001 in class 09-01 and passing off and violation of the plaintiff's said trademark/trade dress/label/packaging ROOP LADY and registered design of sticks of Sindoor and other ROOP variant trademarks.
CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 21 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.
The defendants are directed to hand over the seized goods to the plaintiff as per inventory prepared by the Local Commissioner during search.
21. The Plaintiff shall be entitled to the costs of the suit also. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
22. Judgment be also uploaded on the server.
23. File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance. GORAKH Digitally signed by GORAKH NATH PANDEY NATH Date: 2026.05.06 PANDEY 15:36:15 +0530 Announced in the open court (GORAKH NATH PANDEY) on 02 May, 2026.
nd District Judge (Commercial Court) North East: Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
CS (Comm) 41/2025 Page No. 22 of 22 GUDDU GUPTA TRADING AS M/S. LEELA COSMETICS VS. PAPPU SAH (KALIA GUPTA) AND ORS.