Delhi District Court
Koninklijke Philips N.V. And Anr vs Electrical Master And Ors on 13 December, 2025
DLCT010020452020
IN THE COURT OF SH. M. K. NAGPAL, DISTRICT
JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-13, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020
CNR No. DLCT01-002045-2020
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Koninklijke Philips N.V.
High Tech Campus,
Eindhiven, Netherlands.
2. Philips India Ltd.
3rd Floor, Tower A,
DLF IT Park, 08 Block AF,
Major Arterial Road, New Town,
Kolkata, West Bengal-700156.
..... Plaintiffs
VERSUS
M/S Electrical Master
Through its Proprietor Mohd. Arkan
5013/5, Nabi Karim, Paharganj,
New Delhi-110006.
Also At:-
Kothi No. 2/27, Arya Samaj Gali,
Ansari Road, Daryaganj,
New Delhi-110002.
....... Defendant
Date of Institution : 12.02.2020
Judgment Reserved on : 09.12.2025
Date of Judgment : 13.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by plaintiffs against defendant seeking a decree for permanent injunction in respect to infringement of their CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 1/36 DLCT010020452020 registered trademark in the name of PHILIPS and the copyrights vested therein, passing off their goods as that of plaintiffs', rendition of accounts, delivery up as well as for recovery of damages etc.
2. It is necessary to mention here that M/S Flipkart Ltd. and one Sh. Ashok Kumar were also made as defendant nos. 2 & 3 respectively in this case initially and defendant no. 3 was made a party in an assumed name on the basis of principle of 'John Doe', but subsequently vide order dated 06.10.2020, the name of defendant no. 2 was directed to be deleted from the array of defendants as it was found that the said defendant was only an on- line platform for sale of the counterfeit goods of defendant no.1. Later on, vide order dated 19.02.2025 of the court, even the name of defendant no. 3 was directed to be deleted for the reasons stated in said order as the identity of no other person violating or infringing the trade marks or copyrights of plaintiffs came to be established by or known to the plaintiffs by that time. It is further necessary to mention here that the name of Sh. Mohd. Arkan as proprietor of defendant no.1 has been brought on record at a later stage only vide order dated 19.02.2025 passed on an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC filed by plaintiffs.
3. Plaintiff no. 1 claims itself to be a company incorporated under the laws of Netherlands and having its registered office at High Tech Campus, Netherlands and plaintiff no. 2 is also stated CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 2/36 DLCT010020452020 to be a company incorporated under the laws of India and having its registered office at the above said address of Kolkata, West Bengal. The plaintiffs have filed this suit through their constituted attorney Sh. Ananth Sripadarao and for the sake of convenience, both the plaintiffs shall collectively be referred to hereinafter as plaintiff company to explain the facts.
4. As per averments made in plaint, the plaintiff company is a leading electronics company of immense global repute and having a vast history of more than 100 years and the plaintiff claims to have revolutionized the world with path breaking innovations and unprecedented consumer products. It is averred that plaintiff is one of the largest diversified companies in world with an annual income of 18.1 billion Euros in the year 2018 and it ranked at No. 43 amongst the best global brands of world in the report published in Interbrand Ranking, 2018. The plaintiff company is stated to have been originally formed in the year 1891, when its predecessor namely Philips & Co. was founded by Mr. Gerard Philips and Mr. Frederik Philips in Netherlands and within years of its inception, the plaintiff became the largest producer of light bulbs in world. It is also averred that since then, the plaintiff grew by leaps and bounds and it had been involved in bringing or introducing various innovations in its products in the fields of X-ray, radio technology, television sets, audio cassettes, CDs, DVDs and electric shavers etc., either individually or in collaboration with other companies. It is further averred by CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 3/36 DLCT010020452020 plaintiff company that it had been spending considerable amounts on advertisement and promotion of its products and had won various awards, accolades and recognitions for different products worldwide, the details of which are found stated in para 4 (C) (a) of the plaint.
5. It is also specifically averred by plaintiff company that its trademark PHILIPS has been declared as a well known mark in India and as such it has attained secondary significance and this fact was also recognized in case of M/s Banga Watch Company Vs. M/s N.V. Phillips, AIR 1983 P & H 418, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that "Philips is a household mark and has acquired enviable reputation in India and throughout the world." It is also averred that the above declaration further resulted in above trademark PHILIPS of plaintiff being included at Serial No. 40 in the list of well known trademarks of Registry of India, which is available on-line, and as per the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the above well known trademark is to be recognized and protected across all the Classes of goods and services. It is submitted that the total IP portfolio of plaintiff currently consists of 62,000 patent rights, 37,600 trademarks, 47,800 design rights and 3,000 domain names and plaintiff has filed 1,200 new patents in the year 2017 itself, whereby making it clear that the plaintiff invests huge sums of money to secure its intellectual property interests across the globe.
CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 4/36DLCT010020452020
6. It is the case of plaintiff that its one of the most popular and highest selling product is Advanced Beard Trimmer Series 3000, which consists of QT4001 (launched in March, 2014) amongst other advanced beard trimmer series. It is submitted that the said product series and its packaging was designed by one Mr. M.S. Sutton, who was employed as an Art Director with the department of Communication Design of Philips Consumer Lifestyle B.V., a group company of plaintiff in Netherlands, and the advanced and innovative technology employed by plaintiff in production of its beard trimmers resulted in various features that evidence the superior quality of said product and the said features are also found stated by plaintiff in para 6 of the plaint. It is also averred that the above advanced and innovative technology employed by plaintiff in its Advanced Beard Trimmer had led it to become immensely popular amongst members of the general public or consumers and the immense goodwill vested in such products is clearly evidenced in numerous positive reviews given by consumers on website of Philips India and the plaintiff company had even spent considerable amounts on advertisement of its above products, which are part of the Advanced Beard Trimmer Series 3000, and it resulted in considerable increase in its sales and the sale figures of plaintiff are also found stated in para 8 of the plaint.
7. It is further the case of plaintiff company that its electronic conglomerate is of immense global repute and it had even CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 5/36 DLCT010020452020 instituted suits to protect and enforce its statutory and common law rights in relation to their products forming part of the above Series 3000. It is also averred that packaging of its above Advanced Beard Trimmer Series 3000 consists of several unique elements in respect to the design, layout, colour scheme etc., which consist of the trade dress of plaintiff for said products and these unique elements are found stated by plaintiff in para 10 of the plaint. It has further been submitted by plaintiff company that it had applied for various trademark registrations in respect to its above trademark PHILIPS and a list of such trademark registrations obtained by it is being filed with this case and the plaintiff is prior adopter and registered user of the above trademark PHILIPS and it had been marketing its products under the said trademark in domestic as well as in international market and hence, it is claiming proprietary rights over the said trademark under the common law and has filed the present suit to protect its rights in respect to products QT4000, QT4001, QT4005, QT4006 and QT4011 forming part of the above Advanced Beard Trimmers Series 3000. It is also averred that the vast promotion and advertisement of its trademark and products had resulted in consumers and members of the trade alike associating the above depicted trade dress solely and exclusively with the plaintiff.
8. It is further the case of plaintiff that the entire getup, layout, colour scheme, placement of modalities on its products CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 6/36 DLCT010020452020 give a distinct and exclusive look to its products and the above features together comprise of its trade dress that has already become the distinctive identity of its products and the consumers, trade and public at large etc. identify and distinguish the said trademarks and trade dress with the product of plaintiff. It has also been submitted that sale of plaintiff's products and its business is primarily reliant on said trademark since the same has acquired secondary significance denoting thereby that the said mark with respect to said product is recognized with plaintiff alone and the same has become universally synonymous with goods and business of plaintiff and in consequence thereof, the same has become a distinctive and well known trademark within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and it is, therefore, entitled for highest degree of protection.
9. It is also submitted that product of plaintiff is sold along with product literature containing artistic and literary work, the copyright of which subsists with plaintiff vide registration No. A-113692/2015 and A-96701/2013. It is also submitted that the literary & artistic work and the photographs in the plaintiff's product literature and promotional material and packaging fall within of Sections 2(c), 2(o) & 2(s) of the Copyright Act, 1957 respectively and by virtue of Sections 13 & 14 of the above said Act, the plaintiff is entitled to exclusive rights in copyright vested in the literary work, artistic work etc. as well as packaging of the product, which has been developed and sold by plaintiff. It has CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 7/36 DLCT010020452020 further been submitted that the plaintiff has been granted and since then enjoying protection over design of the beard trimmer forming part of its design registration No. 253140 dated 12.04.2013 that is valid and subsisting. It has been specifically submitted that novelty of product of plaintiff resides in the shape and configuration of its product and hence, the plaintiff owns exclusive proprietary rights over the same.
10. It was also averred by plaintiff in plaint that defendant is selling counterfeit products bearing the exact or same trademark, trade dress and design as that of the plaintiff from his above premises at Kothi No. 2/27 Arya Samaj Gali, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi and the exact constitution of defendant was not known to plaintiff. It was further averred by plaintiff that defendant has been selling his counterfeit replica of plaintiff's product in name of 'Philips Trimmer', which is identical, deceptively and phonetically similar to the registered trademark and trade dress of the plaintiff and he is thereby infringing the plaintiff's statutory rights in the registered trademark 'PHILIPS', both in word and device. It was also averred that the defendant had copied several features of plaintiff's product like shape, label, trade dress, design, packaging and other descriptive features, including the copyrights that validly subsist in favour of the plaintiff and are integral to the product of plaintiff. It was also averred that the defendant is not an authorized licensee of the plaintiff and he is indulging in malafide activities by selling the CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 8/36 DLCT010020452020 impugned products with trademark/trade dress of plaintiff without the requisite authority or a valid licence from plaintiff and hence, he is liable for the same. It was also averred that he is supplying the impugned products on platform of defendant no. 2 M/s Flipkart Ltd., whose name stands already deleted.
11. It is further the case of plaintiff that it came across about the above identical products bearing the name 'Philips Trimmer' being manufactured and sold by defendant in January, 2020, which were deceptively identical and phonetically similar to the products bearing the trademark of plaintiff, as well as its design in respect to the said product. It is also averred that trademark of plaintiff includes its trade dress i.e. PHILIPS, which has immense reputation and goodwill, painstakingly built over the last several years by plaintiff through the dedicated and unparalleled efforts and the said name PHILIPS even forms an integral and critical part of defendant's mark. The plaintiff has also given in plaint a comparative chart of its product PHILIPS TRIMMER QT4001 and that of the impugned product of defendant bearing identical trademark PHILIPS TRIMMER QT4001, along with features thereof, and the same is as under:-
S. NO. PLAINTIFF'S PRODUCT DEFENDANT'S PRODUCT
1. CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 9/36
DLCT010020452020
2. The charger provided as accessory The accessories provided along with the along with the product of the product of the Defendant are fake copies Plaintiff is exclusive to the Plaintiff. and are easily procurable in the open Further, the brush as well as the market, and do not pertain to the product in clippers to be used along with the question, as manufactured by the Plaintiff, product are exclusive to the clearly establishing that the same is Plaintiff and are provided along counterfeit. with the product.
3. The curvature is uniform. The hind The curvature is distorted. The hind portion of the product of the Plaintiff portion of the Plaintiff is entirely has a shinier effect. different than that of the Plaintiff, clearly establishing the fact that the same is a counterfeit replica.
Same as above Same as above
4.
CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 10/36
DLCT010020452020
The certification mark on the product of the
The certification mark on the product Defendant is not in conformity with the of the Plaintiff is distinct in as much layout of the production of the Plaintiff. as the 'E' does not have three equal lines
12. It is further the case of plaintiff that defendant has adopted the above deceptively similar and identical colour scheme, get-up, layout, trade dress and trademark, design and other technical details of the plaintiff with an intention of unjust enrichment at the cost of goodwill and reputation of plaintiff. It is also submitted by plaintiff that the above infringement by defendant is resulting in passing off his goods by defendant as that of the plaintiff's as resemblance between the impugned product of defendant and that of the plaintiff is so pertinently visible that it can hardly occur, except by deliberate imitation, and based on the principle that an average consumer possesses 'average intelligence' and 'imperfect recollection', consumers are bound to CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 11/36 DLCT010020452020 get confused between the goods of plaintiff and that of the defendant. It is further averred by plaintiff that defendant was well aware of the trademark PHILIPS belonging to plaintiff and he has intentionally adopted the above deceptively similar and identical mark in relation to the identical goods.
13. It has also been averred by plaintiff that defendant's intentions and actions are malafide and the same constitute unfair competition viz-a-viz the plaintiff and he is liable to be restrained not only from infringing the trademark/label/logo PHILIPS of plaintiff, but also from infringing the original artistic work existing in the design of said product, label, packaging and overall trade dress of the plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff has been able to make out a case to restrain the defendant from doing so and to prove his entitlement for the claimed reliefs.
14. On perusal of the case file, it is found that vide order dated 13.02.2020 passed by this court on applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 & under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff, the defendant, his agents, assigns, servants, representatives etc. were restrained by the court from stocking, selling, advertising or otherwise dealing with the plaintiff's Advanced Beard Trimmer Series 3000 consisting of QT4001 under the mark PHILIPS or its shield device , or any other mark/label, trade dress or logo which was similar to the CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 12/36 DLCT010020452020 plaintiff's registered trade mark and further, the defendants were also restrained from infringing the copyrights or design rights of plaintiff in goods/packaging/catalogue or any other material in any way and a Local Commissioner was also appointed by the court to visit the given address of defendant at Kothi No. 2/27 Arya Samaj Gali, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi for seizure of infringing or counterfeit goods and material etc.
15. It is a matter of record that the Local Commissioner appointed by this court had visited the given premises of defendant on 17.02.2020 and huge quantities of the infringing products and material valuing more than Rs. 59,00,000/- were seized by him. The persons who were found working at the said premises had called one Mohd. Aamir at spot and he was stated to be the owner of said premises and seizures were effected in his presence and the seized goods and material are also found to have been released on superdari to him on furnishing of a superdginama for an amount equal to the value of said goods and material.
16. On being issued summons by this court, appearance is found to have been filed on behalf of defendant Electrical Master (as it was impleaded in original plaint with name of the firm only) as well as M/s Flipkart Ltd., who were originally made as defendant nos. 1 & 2 respectively in this case. However, instead of filing of a written statement, three different applications i.e. one under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC seeking modification of the CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 13/36 DLCT010020452020 above interim order dated 13.02.2020 of this court, the other under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking deletion of its name and the third under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint came to be filed by defendant no.2 and all these applications were disposed of vide order dated 06.10.2020 of the court. Since it was observed by court that the above ad-interim injunction order was passed against defendant no.1 and the defendant no.2 had only acted as an intermediary and provided a platform for sale of the impugned goods of defendant no.1 and further since it was argued on behalf of the said applicant/defendant no. 2 that it was entitled to a safe harbour in view of provisions contained under Section 79 of the Information and Technology Act, 2000, the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of the said company/defendant was allowed and its name was permitted to be deleted from the array of defendants. However, its other two applications i.e. one under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC and the other Order 7 Rule 11 CPC were dismissed for the reasons that in view of the facts and submissions made thereon, the above interim order dated 13.02.2020 did not require any modification or amendment and further that the plaintiff had a cause of action to file the present suit as per averments made in plaint and hence, the plaint could not be rejected.
17. The defendant no. 1 had, however, filed its written statement on record, along with reply to the above interim application filed by plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.
CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 14/36DLCT010020452020
18. The defendant no.1 in its written statement had taken various preliminary objections to the suit of plaintiff, inter-alia, on grounds that the suit is hit by provisions of Order 7 Rule 4 and Order 7 Rules 10 & 11 CPC; it lacks a cause of action; the plaintiff company and its representative are guilty of suppression of material facts and they have not approached the court with clean hands; the suit is also liable to be dismissed in view of provisions of Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 and that the plaintiff company has not filed on record proper documents to establish its rights about trademark and copyrights etc. in respect to its above product.
18. It has also been submitted by defendant in its written statement that the present suit was not filed or instituted bonafidely by the plaintiff as its representative, who had signed and filed the suit, lacks locus and capacity to do so. It has further been submitted therein that even the identity and other details of person who had executed the power of attorney in favour of the above representative of plaintiff have not been provided or disclosed in plaint and the documents filed therewith and above reasons, and also for the reasons that even the tenure and intendment of authority are vague, blanket and ambiguous and further that he cannot give evidence on behalf of principal, the present suit filed by plaintiff through a representative was not maintainable.
CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 15/36DLCT010020452020
19. However, on merits, the defendant no. 1 is though found to have denied all the claims and averments of plaintiff in a simple, plain and vague manner, but it is not found specifically submitted or pleaded by defendant therein that it was not manufacturing or selling the above impugned product in name of PHILIPS TRIMMER and using the above mark of PHILIPS on its product, which was deceptively similar or resembled with the above PHILIPS mark of plaintiff. It has also nowhere been disclosed by defendant in its written statement as to under what rights or authority, the above mark in name of PHILIPS TRIMMER was being used by it on its products.
20. It is observed on perusal of record that no replication to the written statement and no rejoinder to the reply filed by defendant to the interim application of plaintiff were filed by plaintiff and after hearing the submissions from both sides, the said interim application was finally disposed of by this court on 12.10.2021 and the interim order dated 13.02.2020 passed on above application was confirmed till final disposal of the suit.
21. On same date, the court is also found to have framed the following issues for disposal of this suit:-
1. Whether the suit has not been instituted by a competent representative and is hit by Order VII Rule 4 CPC? OPD CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 16/36 DLCT010020452020
2. Whether the suit is barred under Section 2 of the Power of Attorney Act, 1882 for the reason that the representative of plaintiff has not been duly authorized? OPD
3. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the present matter? OPD
4. Whether the defendant has infringed the trade mark/trade name 'PHILIPS' of the plaintiff? OPP
5. Whether the defendant is liable for passing off its goods as if they originate from the plaintiff? OPP
6. Whether the defendant is liable for the infringement of the original artistic work/trade dress/registered design of the plaintiff? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery up/destruction/ obliteration etc. of the infringing material? OPP
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damages of Rs.
1,00,00,000/- from the defendant? OPP
9. Who is entitled to the costs, against whom and in what quantum? Onus on parties.
10. Relief
22. In support of its case, the plaintiff company had examined on record its authorized representative (AR) Sh. Ananth Sripadarao as PW1 and as its sole witness and he tendered on record his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He is also found to have tendered and relied upon the following documents through the said affidavit:-
(i) Copy of Board Resolution dated 10.10.2019 in his favour executed by the plaintiff no.1 as Mark A (2 pages);CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 17/36
DLCT010020452020
(ii) Copy of Board Resolution dated 19.08.2019 in his favour executed by the plaintiff no.2 as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR);
(iii) Copy of Power of Attorney dated 30.09.2019 as Mark B (2 pages) and copies of subsequent renewals dated 10.08.2021 and 19.10.2023 as Ex.PW1/3 (colly) (OSR);
(iv) Copy of list of International Trademarks of plaintiff company in Benelux as Ex.PW1/4 (colly) (5 pages) (objected to on the ground of admissibility as well as mode of proof);
(v) Copy of list of International Trademarks of plaintiff company in WIPO as Ex.PW1/5 (colly) (10 pages) (objected to on the ground of admissibility as well as mode of proof);
(vi) Copy of list of Trademark Registration of the plaintiff company as Ex.PW1/6 (colly) (72 pages) (objected to on the ground of admissibility as well as mode of proof);
(vii) Copy of extracts from the register of Copyrights Office, India as Ex.PW1/7 (4 pages) (OSR);
(viii) Copy of Certificate of Registration of Design in the Patent Office of India as Mark C (4 pages) and copy of its subsequent renewal dated 14.05.2020 as Ex.PW1/8 (OSR);
(ix) Copy of invoice dated 25.11.2019 for purchase of Philips QT 4001 sold by defendant no.1 on the platform of defendant no.2 (as they were at that time) as Ex.PW1/9 (1 page) (objected to on the ground of admissibility as well as mode of proof);
(x) Copy of Instruction Manual of the plaintiff's product as Ex.PW1/10 (objected to on the ground of admissibility as well as mode of proof); and
(xi) Copy of Instruction Manual of the defendant's no.1 product as Ex.PW1/11 (objected to on the ground of admissibility as well as mode of proof).
23. The above defendant in his defence had also brought into the witness box only one witness named Mohd. Aamir as DW1, CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 18/36 DLCT010020452020 but it has been observed that he was examined-in-chief only on 22.08.2024 and his cross examination was deferred on that date at request of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff as advance copy of the evidence affidavit of witness was not supplied to him and it was supplied only on that day.
24. However, the cross examination or examination of above witness was never conducted or concluded thereafter as it came to be observed by this court vide subsequent order dated 31.07.2024 that the status of defendant (defendant no.1 at that time) was not clear and if it was a proprietorship firm having no legal entity or existence, then an amendment may be required and the name of its proprietor may have to be brought on record. An application under Section 151 r/w Orders 10 & 11 CPC then came to be filed on behalf of plaintiff and through this application, some information/details regarding constitution of said defendant were sought by the plaintiff. These details were supplied by defendant in its reply filed to the above application of plaintiff and it came to be disclosed therein that the said defendant was infact a proprietorship firm registered under the GST Act since 22.08.2019 in the name of one Mohd. Arkan. It was also submitted in said reply that though the sales invoice and documents containing GST number of defendant were in possession of plaintiff, but still the plaintiff did not include the name of actual proprietor of defendant as a party to this suit. It was further submitted therein that Mohd. Aamir, who had joined CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 19/36 DLCT010020452020 the proceedings conducted by Ld. Local Commissioner and had signed the documents as proprietor of said firm only because he was asked to do so by the Ld. Local Commissioner and Ld. Counsel representing the plaintiff, who was also present at that time.
25. It is a matter of record that an application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w Section 151 CPC then came to be filed on behalf plaintiff for impleading the above Mohd. Arkan as proprietor of defendant firm and also the above Mohd. Aamir as an AR of the said firm. Though notice of this application was issued by this court to both the proposed defendants, but Mohd. Arkan could not be served with notice at either of the given addresses of said firm and he has to be ultimately served with notice through publication in the newspaper namely 'Rashtriya Sahara' dated 11.02.2025 for 19.02.2025.
26. The said application of plaintiff was also taken up for disposal by this court on same date i.e. 19.02.2025 and though the above Mohd. Arkan was permitted to be impleaded as sole proprietor of defendant firm Electrical Master, but the request of plaintiff to implead Mohd. Aamir as a party to this suit was declined. This court also came to observe in said order that since the written statement filed on behalf of defendant firm earlier was filed by the above Mohd. Aamir as an AR of the said firm, and along with his supporting affidavit, and further since no CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 20/36 DLCT010020452020 authorization given by the actual owner or proprietor of said firm in his favour was filed on record, it was directed by this court that the said written statement has to be treated as non-est in the eyes of law and hence, an opportunity was given to the above actual owner or proprietor of defendant firm namely Mohd. Arkan to file his fresh written statement in the matter, if any. The court has also disapproved the conduct of Mohd. Aamir in not bringing the above facts on record for a long time. In the same order, this court also observed that the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar as defendant no. 3 was being unnecessarily retained or continued in this suit as defendant, though there was no other person sought to be impleaded as a party to this suit for infringing the rights of plaintiff in respect to the above product and hence, the name of Sh. Ashok Kumar/defendant no. 3 was also directed to be deleted from the array of defendants vide the said order.
27. However, no written statement on behalf of the actual owner or proprietor of defendant firm came to be filed in terms of said order within the stipulated period of 30 days from the date of above order and hence, the right of defendant to file it was directed to be forfeited vide order dated 22.03.2025. Though the maximum prescribed period of 120 days from the date of said order had not expired by that time, but the same subsequently stood expired and therefore, his right to file it stood automatically forfeited by operation of law on expiry of the said period. Thus, there is actually no challenge to the case of plaintiff as the written CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 21/36 DLCT010020452020 statement which was earlier filed on record on behalf of defendant has already been directed to be treated as non-est in the eyes of law and for the same reason, even the cross examination of PW1 conducted by Ld. Counsel representing the defendant firm earlier i.e. prior to impleadment of the name of Mohd. Arkan as proprietor thereof, is of no use and cannot be considered in law to be the cross examination of witness conducted by Ld. Counsel representing the defendant.
28. It is necessary to mention here that subsequently, on an application under Section 151 CPC filed on behalf of plaintiff, the AR of plaintiff was also permitted to be changed and the name of Sh. Manish Kaushal was got substituted by plaintiff company as its new AR in place of the earlier AR Sh. Ananth Sripadarao. Since statement of the earlier AR of plaintiff stood already recorded in this case as PW1, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff had stated that no further evidence was to be led on behalf of plaintiff and hence, the case was straightaway fixed for final arguments for the reasons stated above.
29. Thereafter, the final arguments advanced by Sh. Rohit Gandhi and Sh. Rishabh Pant, Ld Counsels for plaintiff were heard in part by this court and the matter got adjourned for hearing of further arguments on behalf of plaintiff as well as the final arguments on behalf of defendant, if any. Though none had appeared in this case subsequently on behalf of defendant, but CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 22/36 DLCT010020452020 some clarifications were sought by this court from Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and pursuant thereto, some additional documents were filed and additional evidence led by plaintiff through the evidence affidavit Ex.PW2/A of its new AR Sh. Manish Kumar Kaushal examined before the court as PW2.
30. Through this affidavit, PW2 has further tendered and relied upon one authority letter/attorney dated 20.01.2025 executed by plaintiff no. 1 in his favour as Ex.PW2/1, the relevant extracts from the annual reports of plaintiff no. 2 for the financial years 2019-20 and 2023-24 as Ex.PW2/2 (colly), the written resolution of board of management of plaintiff no. 1 as Ex.PW2/3, the extract dated 21.01.2019 from the Netherlands Chamber of Commerce Business Register as Ex.PW2/4 and the certificate/ affidavit given by him regarding authenticity of the computerized printouts of documents tendered through his examination as Ex.PW2/5.
31. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced as well as the written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff. The case record has also been perused. However, none has turned up on behalf of defendant to advance any arguments and even no written arguments on his behalf have been filed despite giving sufficient time and opportunities.
CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 23/36DLCT010020452020 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS ISSUE Nos. 1 & 2 Since issue nos. 1 & 2 are interconnected, for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these issues are being taken up for disposal together.
32. As already discussed, plaintiff no. 1 in memo of parties is a company incorporated under the laws of Netherlands and its registered office is also in Netherlands and plaintiff no. 2 company has been registered and incorporated in India and it is being claimed to be a subsidiary company of plaintiff no. 1. The oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 to this effect stands duly substantiated and corroborated from the contents of documents Ex.PW2/2(colly) and PW2/4. PW2/2 (colly) are the relevant extracts of annual reports of plaintiff no. 2 for the financial years 2019-20 and 2023-24 and as per this document and oral deposition made by PW2, plaintiff no. 1 holds 96.13% share capital of plaintiff no. 2 company and it is, thus, the parent or holding company of plaintiff no. 2.
33. Further, as already discussed, the plaintiffs had instituted this suit through Sh. Ananth Sripadarao as their authorized representative and to substantiate their claim to this effect and also the oral depositions of PW1 Sh. Ananth Sripadarao on this aspect, PW1 had, inter-alia, found to have tendered on record CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 24/36 DLCT010020452020 copies of the board resolutions dated 10.10.2019 and 19.08.2019 of plaintiff no. 1 and plaintiff no. 2 company to this effect as Mark A and Ex. PW1/2 respectively and also a copy of one power of attorney dated 30.09.2019 in his favour as Mark B and the copies of its renewals dated 10.08.2021 and 19.10.2023 as Ex.PW1/3 (colly). Again, even through the testimony of PW2 certain documents relevant on this aspect came to be tendered in evidence by plaintiff as Ex.PW2/3, which is a copy of the written resolution of board of management of plaintiff no. 1 company authorizing the persons named therein to do certain acts on behalf of company, which even include to give authorizations to others to act or to sign documents etc. on behalf of the company. It is necessary to mention here that these issues regarding competency of Sh. Ananth Sripadarao to act on behalf of and to file the suit as a representative of plaintiffs were framed in view of specific objections taken in the written statement filed by above Mohd. Aamir as a representative of defendant and it was submitted therein that there was no document on record to show that one Mr. Marnix Van Ginneken, who had executed the power of attorney Mark B in favour of Sh. Ananth Sripadarao, was himself authorized by plaintiff No. 1 company to execute the same. The document Ex. PW2/3 establishes that Mr. Marnix Van Ginneken was one of the three persons who were authorized by the said company to execute such documents. The authenticity of documents Ex.PW2/1, Ex.PW2/2, Ex.PW2/3 and Ex.PW2/4 stands duly established from the certificate/affidavit Ex.PW2/5 CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 25/36 DLCT010020452020 given by PW2 under the provisions of Order 11 Rule 6 CPC r/w Section 63 of BSA, 2023. The document Ex.PW2/1 is an authority in favour of this witness also to appear and depose before this court.
34. Hence, even though the originals of documents Mark A and Mark B (colly) have not been brought on record and the same being photocopies cannot be considered to be a part of the evidence, but the other documents tendered in evidence and exhibited through the statements of these two witnesses, which have gone unchallenged because of their non-cross examination, are sufficient to hold that the present suit was filed by plaintiffs through an authorized representative. Further, the detailed and unchallenged depositions made by this witness also show and establish that he was a competent witness to depose about the facts of this case and also about the infringement etc. of plaintiff's rights in respect to the above trademark/device etc. in name of PHILIPS by the defendant herein. Hence, these issues are being decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. 335. It has been observed that in the plaint itself, it was specifically averred by plaintiffs that they are carrying on their business from Delhi in respect to goods bearing the trademark PHILIPS and they also have their branch office in Delhi and CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 26/36 DLCT010020452020 hence, they were entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this court in terms of Section 134 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. It is further found averred specifically in plaint itself that even the office of defendant no. 2 was situated in Delhi and PW1 in his evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A is also found to have made specific depositions to this effect. There has been no challenge to the above claim of plaintiffs and depositions made by PW1 in his evidence affidavit on this aspect because the defendant has failed to file his written statement on record within the maximum permitted time and his right to file it stood forfeited and he failed to even cross-examine the above PWs. Hence, there is no ground or reason to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of PW1 to this effect and the documents and evidence on record. Therefore, this issue is also decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE Nos. 4 to 8 Since issue Nos. 4 to 8 are interconnected, for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, these issues are being taken up for disposal together.
36. The evidence affidavit of PW1 Sh. Ananth Sripatharao contains his detailed depositions on various aspects of the facts stated in plaint and through this affidavit, PW1 duly deposed on record as to how the plaintiff has become a leading name in the field of electronics and a company of the global repute with a history of more than 100 years and has changed the lifestyle of CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 27/36 DLCT010020452020 people with its various range of products and through the innovations carried out in respect thereto. He also deposed in the said affidavit about the operations of plaintiff company, the extent of its business and the rising pattern thereof, its strength and also the success earned by plaintiff with the user of above tradename/ trademark/device/logo of PHILIPS across the world and also the awards, accolades and recognitions etc. won or earned by it for its different products with the said mark/device.
37. Further, the evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A of this witness also contains his specific depositions to the effect that PHILIPS Beard Trimmer Series 3000, which also consists of QT4000, QT4001, QT4005, QT4006 and QT4011, is amongst the advanced beard trimmer series and the said product series and its packaging and designs etc. have been created by plaintiff only and the same consist of various distinctive features evidencing its superior quality and designing and it is one of the largest selling products series of plaintiff. The depositions made by PW1 also suggest the efforts and finances put in promotion and publication of the said products and the results yielded by plaintiff because of same by way of increase in its sale figures and revenues. It has further been submitted by PW 1 that the plaintiff has obtained various trademark registrations from the trademark registry of this country in respect to their above mark/device/logo of Philips and the plaintiff has even filed on record not only the CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 28/36 DLCT010020452020 copies of online status reports of such mark/device got registered in India and abroad, but also copies of the trade mark certificates issued in respect thereto and showing that the said trademark/ device of plaintiff has been registered for various types of goods falling in different Classes like Class 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 35 to 38 and 41 to 45 etc.
38. Further, it has also been specifically stated by above witness that the entire getup, layout, colour scheme, placement of modalities on its products give a distinct and exclusive look to its products and the above features together comprise of its trade dress and people at large identify the said product as that of the plaintiff only because of these features, trade dress and design etc. and their above trademark/device/trade name has acquired secondary significance and it has universally become synonymous with the goods and business of plaintiff. It has also been specifically deposed by him that the same has become a distinctive and well known trademark within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and it is, therefore, entitled for highest degree of protection. It is further found deposed by him that the copyrights in respect to said mark also vest and subsist in their favour, having been registered under the Copyrights Act, 1957, and thus, the same are also liable to be protected being the original literary & artistic work of plaintiff as by virtue of the provisions of Sections 13 & 14 of this Act, plaintiff is entitled to use the same exclusively. It has further been CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 29/36 DLCT010020452020 deposed specifically by him that even the design of their above beard trimmer forming part of above series has been registered under the Designs Act, 2000 vide application No. 253140 dated 12.04.2013 and to substantiate his depositions on these aspects, he is also found to have tendered on record copies of relevant extracts of register being maintained under the Copyrights Act as well as a copy of their design registration certificate for the above said product.
39. Again, PW1 is also found to have deposed specifically in his evidence affidavit Ex.PW1/A about the similarities between their above product trimmer bearing the original trademark/ device/logo of PHILIPS and the impugned product which was being sold by defendant no. 1 (as it was initially) through the online platform provided by defendant no. 2 (originally impleaded in this case) and from the testimony of this witness and the comparative chart of photographs of original and infringing products produced or given in his evidence affidavit, the printouts of these products filed separately on record and also the printouts of instruction manuals of plaintiff and defendant, it is clear that the infringing product which is being sold by defendant is almost a replica of the original product of plaintiff as the defendant has not only adopted and used the tradename/mark/logo of PHILIPS for his said product, but he has also copied all the essential features, design and trade dress etc. of plaintiff's product and this CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 30/36 DLCT010020452020 does not appear to be a coincident or an honest adoption by him and it apparently has been done by him with malafide intents and designs to ride upon the goodwill and reputation earned by plaintiff with the user of his above trademark/device/logo of PHILIPS . The infringing trademark/device/logo being used by defendant for his above product is bound to create a confusion in the minds of customers or end users of said product and they may relate these infringing products of defendant with that of the plaintiff and there can be no second opinion that it will enable the defendant to pass off his infringing goods as that of plaintiff's and the same will consequentially result in huge losses to the plaintiff, in financial terms as well as in term of its reputation and goodwill.
40. Further, though the sales invoice of Rs. 1,060/- dated 25.11.2019 filed by plaintiff on record regarding purchase of the above infringing product QT4001 being sold by defendant no. 1 earlier through the online platform of the then defendant no. 2 has not been proved on record as per law, but the report of Ld. Local Commissioner appointed by this court is a part of record and it shows seizure of a heavy quantity of infringing products from the given premises of defendant valuing more than Rs. 59,00,000/-. Though the Ld. Local Commissioner has not been examined by plaintiff as a witness before this court, but in view of the judgments in cases M.L. Brother LLP Vs. Mahesh Kumar CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 31/36 DLCT010020452020 Bhrualal Tanna, CS (Comm) 126/2022 decided on 12.05.2022, Eureka Forbes Limited Vs. Vaibhav Agro Industries, 2023 SCC OnLine 909 and Gian Chand Aggarwal Vs. Hitesh & Anr. 2023/DHC/000838, the said report in itself is an important piece of evidence and can be read in evidence in terms of provisions contained in Order 26 Rule 10(2) CPC. Further, in terms of the judgment in cases Sandisk LLC & Anr. Vs. Laxmi Mobiles & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 432; LT Foods Ltd. Vs. Saraswati Trading Company, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3694; Disney Enterprise Inc. & Anr. Vs. Balraj Muttneja & Ors., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 781; Cross Fit LLC Vs. RTB Gym and Fitness Centre, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2788 and Puma SE Vs. Mahesh Kumar, 2025:DHC:1552, being relied upon Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, a decree for the relief of injunction etc. about infringement of a trademark can be passed on the basis of such a report of Local Commissioner and the suit of plaintiff could have been allowed even without any evidence led by him.
41. Thus, in view of above, the plaintiff companies are held entitled to a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant firm namely M/S Electrical Master, through its proprietor Mohd. Arkan, from infringing their registered trademark/name/device/logo of PHILIPS and its trade dress, copyrights vested therein and also the registered design thereof and from passing off its goods bearing the impugned CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 32/36 DLCT010020452020 trademark/name/device/logo of PHILIPS , which are deceptively similar and resemble to the original trademark/ device/logo/trade dress and design etc. of plaintiff or even from using any other identical trademark/name/device/logo etc.
42. Further, the plaintiff companies are also held entitled to a decree for delivery-up of the above infringing products recovered from the premises of defendant during the visit of Ld. Local Commissioner and to the destruction of said products as per law.
43. Regarding the relief of damages being claimed by plaintiffs, it is found that the plaintiffs have claimed damages of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- jointly and severally from all three defendants impleaded originally in plaint, but as already discussed, the names of persons/entities impleaded as defendants no. 2 & 3 were lateron deleted and now only the defendant no. 1 firm named Electrical Master owned by Mohd. Arkan is the sole defendant of this case. Though no evidence at all has been led by plaintiffs on record to justify its claim for the above huge amount of damages being claimed by them, but taking into account the heavy seizure of infringing articles valuing more than Rs. 59,00,000/- effected from the premises of defendant, it is certainly a case where not only compensatory but punitive damages are required to be awarded to plaintiffs. Hence, keeping in view the above facts and evidence brought on record and specifically the seizures effected CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 33/36 DLCT010020452020 from defendant's premises, the plaintiffs are also being held entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 60,00,000/- as damages from the defendant firm Electrical Master owned by Mohd. Arkan for infringement of their trademark/name/device/logo of PHILIPS and its registered design and copyrights etc. related thereto. The above issues are accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
ISSUE No. 944. In view of findings arrived at while deciding issues No. 4 to 8, the plaintiffs are also held entitled to recover from defendant the costs of this suit and other proceedings, including the legal fee and other expenses paid to Ld. Local Commissioner, to be calculated as per High Court Rules.
ISSUE No. 10- RELIEF
45. Therefore, in view of the above discussion and findings arrived at by the court on above issues, the suit of plaintiff companies is accordingly allowed and the following decrees in their favour are directed to be drawn:-
1) A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Mohd. Arkan, who is owner/proprietor of the firm namely M/S Electrical Master, and his agents, assigns, servants, representatives etc. from stocking, selling and CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 34/36 DLCT010020452020 advertising etc. or otherwise dealing in any manner with the plaintiffs' Advanced Beard Trimmer Series 3000 consisting of QT4001 under the mark PHILIPS or its shield device , or any other mark/label, trade dress or logo which is similar to the plaintiffs' registered trade mark and also from infringing the registered copyrights and design rights of plaintiffs in goods/packaging/catalogue or in any other material related thereto in anyway or manner;
2) A decree for delivery-up of the above infringing products recovered from the premises of defendant during the visit of Ld. Local Commissioner and to the destruction of said products as per law;
3) A decree for recovery of a sum of Rs. 60,00,000/- from defendant as damages and also to simple interest @ 9% per annum in case the said amount is not paid within a period of 60 days from today and till the said amount is realized;
and
4) A decree for recovery the costs of this suit and other proceedings, including the legal fee and other expenses paid to Ld. Local Commissioner, from defendant, which are to be calculated as per High Court Rules.
CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 35/36DLCT010020452020
46. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court Dated: 13.12.2025 (M. K. Nagpal) District Judge, Commercial Court-13 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, MK Delhi/13.12.2025 NAGPAL Digitally signed by M K NAGPAL Date: 2025.12.13 14:38:07 +0530 CS (Comm.) No. 583/2020 36/36