Delhi District Court
The Supreme Industries Limited vs Supreme Drip System on 19 March, 2025
CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV:
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02:
NORTH-WEST DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No.DLNW01-011329-2023
Civil Suit (Comm.) No.887/2023
In the matter of:
The Supreme Industries Limited,
612, Raheja Chambers, Nariman Point,
Mumbai-400021.
Through Its Authorized Representative
Shri Prashant Kumar,
.....Plaintiff
(Through Shri Gautam Bhasin & Shri Varun Khanna, Advocates)
Versus
Supreme Drip System,
41/1, 2nd Main,
Azeez Sait Industrial Estate, Nayandanahalli,
Bengaluru, Karnataka-560039.
.....Defendant
(Ex-parte vide order dated 12.09.2024)
Date of Institution of Suit : 12.12.2023
Date of hearing arguments on application : 05.03.2025
U/o VIII Rule 10 CPC
Date of judgment : 19.03.2025
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING DEFENDANT
FROM INFRINGEMENT AND PASSING OFF OF TRADEMARK(S),
COPYRIGHT AND FOR DAMAGES, RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS,
DELIVERY UP ETC.
VINOD Digitally signed
by VINOD YADAV
YADAV Date: 2025.03.19
17:25:50 +0530
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 1 of 21
CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
19.03.2025
JUDGMENT UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 10 CPC
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, restraining
infringement of trademark(s), copyright, passing off, damages, rendition of
accounts, delivery up etc., filed by plaintiff against the defendant.
2. The facts of the case in brief, as borne out from the record are
that plaintiff is a company, incorporated under the Indian Companies Act,
1913, having its registered office at 612, Raheja Chambers, Nariman Point,
Mumbai- 400 021 and engaged in manufacturing of wide range of plastic
products with a variety of applications in Moulded Furniture, Storage &
Material Handling Products, XF Films & Products, Performance Films,
Industrial Moulded Products, Protective Packaging Products, Composite
Plastic Products, Plastic Piping System & Petrochemicals.
3. (i) It is stated that plaintiff company is the registered proprietor
of "SUPREME" trademark in India and the details of various trademark
registrations granted in favour of plaintiff company for the mark
"SUPREME" in various classes are provided hereunder:
TRADEMARK REGISTRATIONS
Name of Trade Mark Application Class Status Validity Date
Applicant No.
THE SUPREME 1204725 17 Registered 09/06/2023
SUPREME
INDUSTRIE
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 2 of 21
CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
S LIMITED
THE SUPREME 1320635 17 Registered 17/11/2024
SUPREME Aqua Gold
INDUSTRIE
S LIMITED
THE 1482106 17 Registered 28/08/2026
SUPREME
INDUSTRIE
S LIMITED
THE 2410805 17 Registered 12/10/2032
SUPREME
INDUSTRIE
S LIMITED
THE SUPREME 2010536 17 Registered 18/08/20230
SUPREME VARSHA
INDUSTRIE
S LIMITED
(ii) It is claimed that plaintiff also enjoys Copyright of the Artistic
work under the title SUPREME / /
A-92422/2012 and SUPREME- PEOPLE WHO KNOW PLASTICS
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 3 of 21
CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
BEST/ / A- 79964/2007.
4. It is further stated that in view of the plaintiff's proprietary
rights both under statutory and common law in its said trademarks, its
goodwill & reputation, and its copyrights, it has the exclusive right to the
use thereof and nobody can be permitted to use the same or any other
deceptively similar trademark/label in any manner whatsoever in relation
to any specification of goods without the leave and license of the plaintiff.
5. (i) Defendant is stated to be a proprietorship concern, based at
Bengaluru, Karnataka and also engaged in the business of procuring,
manufacturing, and selling pipes, PVC, tubes, Hoses of SUPREME DRIP
SYSTEM which is being sold as SUPREME/
i.e. by counterfeiting the
plaintiff's brand SUPREME.
(ii) It is alleged that during a market survey conducted in the
month of November' 2023, plaintiff company came to know that defendant
has been selling impugned goods by using the Trademark "SUPREME
DRIP SYSTEM" in which the word "SUPREME" is being written in bold
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 4 of 21
CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
red color font with an accompanying tagline which is same/similar to the
plaintiff mark, thereby infringing the plaintiff's trademark.
6. It is further averred that plaintiff also conducted online
investigation and it was revealed that defendant is conducting business
from his own website i.e., https://supreme-drip.business.site/?
utm_source=gmb&utm_medium=referral and also selling counterfeited
products through third party websites as well i.e., Indiamart
https://www.indiamart.com/proddetail/drip-irrigation-
pipes-2852529684173.html, Justdial
https://www.justdial.com/jdmart/Bangalore/Supreme-Drip-System-Near-
Underpass-Nayandahalli/080PF005538_BZDET/catalogue, Trade India
https://www.tradeindia.com/supreme-drip-system-17396181/. The online
business directory further revealed that the said concern was listed in the
category of pipes, pipe fittings, ppr, CPVC pipes etc. The plaintiff further
learnt that representatives of the defendant have also started soliciting,
networking about the impugned goods under the impugned
trademark/label/tradename in markets of New Delhi viz. Ashok Vihar,
Aman Vihar, Pitampura, Mangolpuri, Rani Bagh, Rithala, Netaji Subhash
Place, Sultanpuri, Udhyog nagar etc.
7. It is contended that plaintiff had also executed a Criminal
search & seizure on the premises of defendant on 29.11.2023 vide FIR
No.552/2023 by the police assistance from police station Chandra Layout
and seized the impugned goods consisting of 241 pieces of Supreme Drip
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 5 of 21
CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
Rolls and 650 pieces Stickers/Labels. It is stated that defendant is neither
the authorized dealer of plaintiff nor does the plaintiff directly supply any
original products to it.
8. It has been averred that by doing so, the defendant is not only
damaging the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff company by passing
off his substandard products as that of the plaintiff company but is also
causing financial loss to the plaintiff company by reaping unfair advantage
of the repute and distinctive character of the trademark of the plaintiff
company.
9. (i) As such, the plaintiff has filed the instant suit against the
defendant, inter alia praying a decree of permanent injunction, restraining
the defendant by itself as also through its individual proprietor/partners
agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockiest(s)
and all others acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing,
marketing, using, selling, soliciting, importing, exporting, displaying,
advertising or by audio, visual, print or on online platforms or through
social medias or any other mode or manner dealing in or using the
impugned trade mark/label/colour combination/trade dress or any other
trade mark/label/colour combination/trade dress/colour combination which
may identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said
SUPREME, , , SUPREME DRIP SYSTEM/
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 6 of 21
CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
, etc trade mark/label/colour
combination/trade dress in relation to its impugned goods and business
i.e. irrigation pipes, PVC, pipes and tanks etc. and other related and allied
and cognate goods from doing any other acts or deeds, thereby infringing
plaintiff's registered trade marks and copyright; and passing off its goods
and business as that of the goods and business of the plaintiff.
(ii) The plaintiff further sought restraining and cancelling
defendant's impugned website/domain name/email account i.e.,
https://supreme-drip.business.site/?
utm_source=gmb&utm_medium=referral/ [email protected]
for selling the impugned goods.
(iii) An order order/decree of Rupees 3,05,000/- (Three Lakh Five
Thousand only) on account of damages sustained by the plaintiff on
account of loss of sale, reputation, and goodwill as well as dilution of
plaintiff's trademark due to the impugned activities of the defendants; and
(iv) An order for removal of all the reference of the impugned
trademark/label/packaging/trade dress SUPREME, /
, etc.
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 7 of 21
CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
10. (i) It is worthwhile to note that alongwith the instant suit,
plaintiff company had also filed application U/o XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC,
inter alia seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant,
thereby restraining the defendant and all acting on his behalf from directly
or indirectly dealing in the impugned packaging
/ SUPREME DRIP SYSTEM/SUPREME
and/or any other packaging/label or any material which is identical and/or
confusingly or deceptively similar to trade mark and copyright vested in
plaintiff's registered trademarks, copyright and passing off their products
as that of plaintiff.
(ii) A further injunction was sought thereby directing the
defendant and all acting on his behalf from holding out by using the
impugned images on its website https://supreme-drip.business.site/?
utm_source=gmb&utm_medium=referral or in any other manner of being
in affiliation/association with the plaintiff.
(iii) Vide detailed order dated 12.12.2023, passed by this Court,
the aforesaid application moved by the plaintiff was allowed.
Consequently, till further orders, the defendant, its directors, wholesalers,
distributors, partners, or proprietor(s), officers, servants and agents were
restrained from using, manufacturing, selling, exporting, importing,
offering for sale, distributing, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 8 of 21
CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
the impugned packaging /
SUPREME DRIP SYSTEM/SUPREME and/or any other packaging/label
or any material containing any artistic work in the manner which is/are
identical and substantially similar reproduction of the artistic work of the
plaintiff's registered trademark "SUPREME / /
, thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trade marks
and copyright; and passing off its goods and business as that of the goods
and business of the plaintiff.
(iv) Moresoever, till further orders, the defendant, its directors,
wholesalers, distributors, partners, or proprietor, officers, servants and
agents etc. were further restrained from using, selling, exporting,
importing, offering for sale, distributing, advertising, directly or indirectly
dealing in Pipes, goods of any description and from holding out by using
the impugned images on its website https://supreme-drip.business.site/?
utm_source=gmb&utm_medium=referral or in any other manner of being
in affiliation/association with the plaintiff's registered trademark.
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 9 of 21
CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
11. (i) Further, vide order dated 12.12.2023, summons in the suit and
notice of application U/o XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC was issued against the
defendant. Since, the summons were not received back, accordingly vide
order dated fresh summons as well as e-summons were ordered to be
issued against the defendant.
(ii) Despite being duly served with e-summons on 07.09.2024, no
appearance was put forth on behalf of defendant before the Court.
Accordingly, vide order dated 12.09.2024, defendant was proceeded "ex-
parte" and the matter was notified for ex-parte PE.
12. Since the defendant has been proceeded "ex-parte" and there
being no written statement on behalf of defendant on record, learned
counsel for the plaintiff preferred an application under Order VIII Rule 10
CPC in the matter, inter alia praying for passing of summary judgment in
the matter. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no need for
leading evidence in the matter in the view of law laid down by Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "CS (OS) No.1213/2011", titled
as, "Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. V/s Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd.".
(DOD: 07.02.2013) and the matter can be disposed off on the basis of
material on record.
13. I have heard Shri Gautam Bhasin and Shri Varun Khanna,
Advocates, learned counsels for the plaintiff and gone through the entire
material on record.
14. The scope of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC in commercial suits
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 10 of 21
CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
particularly under the New Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and
Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court Act, 2015 has been
examined by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as,
"235(2016)DLT 354", titled as, "Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. Umesh Gupta
& Anr.", whereby the Hon'ble High Court has been pleased to lay down as
under:
xxxxx
"11. Order VIII Rule 10 has been inserted by the
legislature to expedite the process of justice. The
courts can invoke its provisions to curb dilatory
tactic, often resorted to by defendants, by not filing
the written statement by pronouncing judgment
against it. At the same time, the courts must be
cautious and judge the contents of the plaint and
documents on record as being of an unimpeachable
character, not requiring any evidence to be led to
prove its contents.
..........
28. The present suit is also a commercial suit within the definition of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 and it was the clear intention of the legislature that such cases should be decided expeditiously and should not be allowed to linger on. Accordingly, if the defendant fails to pursue his case or does so in a lackadaisical manner by not filing his written statement, the courts should invoke the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 to decree such cases."
xxxxxx
15. (i) Further the power and authority of the Courts to straightway decree a suit on the basis of averments made in plaint in terms of Order Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 11 of 21 CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025 VIII Rule 10 CPC, in the absence of a written statement filed by the defendant is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as, "(1999) 8 SCC 396", titled as, "Balraj Taneja V/s Sunil Madan".
(ii) Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.618/2019", titled as, "Parsvnath Developers Limited V/s Vikram Khosla" (DOD: 03.03.2021), has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff, it is noted that the defendant has not cared to appear before this Court and was proceeded ex-
parte. The law with regard to Order VIII Rule 10 CPC is clear, which stipulates that where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9, fails to present the same within time permitted or fixed by the Court as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment or make such orders in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of same, the decree sheet shall be drawn up. Accordingly, in view of the provisions of order VIII Rule 10 CPC, I proceed to decide the present suit. Further, I am in agreement with the judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court as relied upon by the plaintiff in paragraph 8 on the issue that in ex-parte matters no purpose would be served if evidence is directed to be led. There being no written statement filed, the averments in the Plaint being unrebutted, the same are deemed to be correct.
xxxxx
(iii) Recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.72/2022", titled as, "Kleenoil Filtration India Pvt. Ltd.
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 12 of 21CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025 V/s Udit Khatri & Ors." (DOO: 05.01.2023) has been pleased to clear the air regarding power and authority of Court to straightway decree the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
16. Further, on the aspect of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, I am also duly conscious of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case reported as, "Civil Appeal No.9695/2013", titled as, "Asma Lateef & Anr. V/s Shabbir Ahmad & Ors." (DOD: 12.01.2024), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to categorically observe that a Court is not supposed to pass a mechanical judgment invoking Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC, merely on the basis of plaint, upon the failure of defendant to file a written statement. I am further conscious of the fact that a judgment, if pronounced by a Court under Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC, must satisfy the requirements of Rule 4(2) or Order XX CPC and thereby conform to its definition provided in Section 2(9) thereof.
17. Further in case reported as, "CS (OS) No.559/2010", titled as, "Indian Performing Rights Society Limited V/s Gauhati Town Club"
(DOD: 30.01.2013), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to observe that where the defendant is "ex-parte" and the material before the Court is sufficient to allow the claim of the plaintiff, then the time of the Court should not be wasted in directing ex-parte evidence to be recorded and which mostly is nothing, but a repetition of the contents of the plaint.
18. Now, coming back to the facts of instant case. From the Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 13 of 21 CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025 material placed on record by the plaintiff, it is clearly evident that registration of trademarks/label SUPREME, , , are valid and subsisting in favour of plaintiff company till date. Further, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff invited the attention of this Court to the photograph(s) of the infringed products being sold by the defendant. A perusal of the registered trademark of the plaintiff and the impugned trademark used by the defendant, as placed on record, shows that impugned trademark/label "SUPREME DRIP SYSTEM/ , Supreme/ " is identical to the registered trademark(s) of the plaintiff in all material particulars including the style, design, dress code and colour combination and an unwary customer can be easily misled and deceived by the said infringed trademark and can be trapped in buying the infringed goods as that of the plaintiff. For ready reference, the photographs of the goods of the plaintiff and that of the defendant are reproduced hereunder for comparison:-Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 14 of 21
CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025 PLAINTIFF PRODUCT/MARK DEFENDANT PRODUCT/MARK
19. Therefore, it is clearly evident that defendant has adopted the impugned trademark which is/are visually, structurally, deceptively and confusingly similar to plaintiff's registered trade marks/label SUPREME, , , in respect of identical goods which creates the same commercial impression.
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 15 of 21CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
20. The defendant cannot be allowed to piggy bag upon the reputation of plaintiff. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case involving somewhat similar facts, i.e in case reported as, "1992 SCC Online Del 122", titled as, "The Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. V/s Mahavir Steels & Ors." (DOD: 25.02.1992), has been pleased to hold as under:
xxxxx
14. .........An imitation remains an imitation whether it is done by one or by many. It acquires no legitimacy. A wrong is not righted by the following it musters. Infringement of trade mark by a trader cannot be justified on the ground that there are others like him who are doing the same. There is a growing tendency to copy the trade marks to cash upon some one else's business reputation . The pirates of trade marks are like parasites clinging to others for their growth. Imitators of trade marks have the sole object of diverting the business of others. This tendency must be curbed in the interest of the trade and the consumers.
xxxxx
21. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, I am of the considered opinion that there is no real prospect of defendant succeeding in proving his defence, as he is already lying proceeded "ex-parte" vide order dated 12.09.2024. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to meander mindlessly in Court and to clog the justice delivery system. Therefore, in my opinion, present is a fit case where the Summary Judgment in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, deserves to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 16 of 21CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
22. Considering the present case on the touchstone of the law laid down in the above referred judgments, I find that no useful purpose would be served, firstly by framing the issue with regard to grant of damages & cost and then asking the plaintiff to lead evidence in the matter. I am further of the considered opinion that there is no defence available on record on part of defendant which debars the plaintiff from claiming decree in the matter, as there is no real prospect of the defendant successfully defending his claim.
23. As regards the damages claimed for by the plaintiff, it is noted that The Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 provide guidance on the manner in which the damages could be calculated in such cases. Rule 20 of the IPD Rules, 2022 is set out below:
xxxxx "20. Damages/Account of profits:A party seeking damages/account of profits, shall give a reasonable estimate of the amounts claimed and the foundational facts/account statements in respect thereof along with any evidence, documentary and/or oral led by the parties to support such a claim. In addition, the Court shall consider the following factors while determining the quantum of damages:
(i) Lost profits suffered by the injured party;
(ii) Profits earned by the infringing party;
(iii) Quantum of income which the injured party may have earned through royalties/license fees, had the use of the subject IPR been duly authorized;
(iv) The duration of the infringement;
(v) Degree of intention/neglect underlying the infringement;
(vi) Conduct of the infringing party to mitigate the Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 17 of 21 CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025 damages being incurred by the injured party; In the computation of damages, the Court may take the assistance of an expert as provided for under Rule 31 of these Rules.
xxxxx
24. Further, on the aspect of damages, in case reported as, "2019:DHC:2185", tilted as, "Koninlijke Philips and Ors. V/s Amazestore & Ors.", the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to lay down certain standards for grant of damages in following terms:
xxxxx "41. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the rule of thumb that should be followed while granting damages can be summarized in a chart as under:--
# Degree of malafide conduct Proportionate award
(i) First time innocent infringer Injunction
(ii) First-time knowing infringer Injunction + partial costs
(iii) Repeated knowing infringer which Injunction + costs + partial causes minor impact to the plaintiff damages
(iv) Repeated knowing infringer which Injunction + costs+ causes major impact to the plaintiff compensatory damages
(v) Infringement which was deliberate Injunction + Costs + and calculated Aggravated damages (gangster/scam/mafia) + wilfful (compensatory + additional contempt of Court damages)
42. It is clarified that the above chart is illustrative and is not to be read as a statutory provision. The Courts are free to deviate from the same for good reason."
xxxxx Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 18 of 21 CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
25. It is a matter of record that plaintiff had also executed a Criminal search & seizure on the premises of defendant on 29.11.2023 vide FIR No.552/2023 by the police assistance from police station Chandra Layout and seized the impugned goods consisting of 241 pieces of Supreme Drip Rolls and 650 pieces Stickers/Labels.
26. In my considered opinion, this is a fit case where it can be held that defendant has no defence and a summary judgment in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC can be passed. I order accordingly.
27. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under:
(i) A decree of permanent injunction is hereby passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby restraining the defendant by itself as also through its individual proprietor/partners agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockiest(s) and all others acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, marketing, selling, exporting, importing, offering for sale, distributing, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in the impugned packaging / SUPREME DRIP SYSTEM/SUPREME and/or any other packaging/label or any material containing any artistic work in the Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 19 of 21 CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025 manner which is/are identical and substantially similar reproduction of the artistic work of the plaintiff's registered trademark "SUPREME / / , thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trade marks and copyright; and passing off its goods and business as that of the goods and business of the plaintiff;
(ii) The defendant is further restrained from using impugned website/domain name/email account i.e., https://supreme-
drip.business.site/?utm_source=gmb&utm_medium=referral/ [email protected] for selling the impugned goods.
(iii) A decree in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) on account of damages sustained by the plaintiff due to loss of sale, reputation and goodwill as well as dilution of plaintiff's trademark is passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant, subject to payment of requisite Court fees thereupon by the plaintiff and;
(iv) Plaintiff is also entitled to cost of the proceedings, which will include actual cost incurred by the plaintiff, cost incurred towards execution of Local Commission as also the counsel's fee which is quantified as Rs.2,25,000/- (in terms Memo of Fees, dated 12.12.2023, filed by learned counsel for the plaintiff).
28. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 20 of 21CS (Comm.) No.887/2023: The Supreme Industries Limited Vs Supreme Drip System:
DOD: 19.03.2025
29. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
Digitally signed VINOD by VINOD YADAV YADAV Date: 2025.03.19 17:25:58 +0530 Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav) open Court on 19.03.2025 District Judge (Commercial Court)-02 North-West/Rohini Courts Decreed U/o XIII-A CPC: Page 21 of 21