Delhi District Court
Rspl Health Pvt. Ltd vs Sarvjeet And Sons Chemical Products on 24 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA,
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-01, PATIALA
HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
Sl. INDEX
No. HEADINGS Page Nos.
1. Memo of Parties 2
2. Description of case 2
3. Brief Facts of the Case 2-10
4. Plea of defendants 10-11
5. Appreciation of arguments, facts and law 11-22
6. Decision 22
Digitally
signed by
PULASTYA
PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
PRAMACHALA Date:
2026.03.24
18:41:12
+0530
CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Page No.1 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
CS (COMM) 79/2025
M/S RSPL HEALTH PRIVATE LIMITED
119-121 (Part) Block P & T
Fazalganj, Kalpi Road
Kanpur-208012 (U.P.)
Also at:
C-1, 2 & 3, PP Towers-A
3rd Floor, Netaji Subhash Place
Pitampura, New Delhi- 110034.
...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sarvjeet and Sons Chemical
Products Pvt. Ltd.
SN-05, Hari Complex, Madanpur,
Sector-26, Panchkula, Haryana-134116
having Factory at:
101, Bemoura, Behta Malke Goan Road,
Lalganj, Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh-229201.
...Defendant
JUDGMENT
DESCRIPTION OF THE CASE
1) Vide this order, I shall decide the application filed by plaintiff under Order XIII A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff.
2) The plaintiff i.e. RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. filed this suit for permanent injunction, passing off, infringement of trademark and copyright, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
3) Briefly stated, the facts as alleged in the plaint are that the CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.2 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi plaintiff company is duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956 and is part of the RSPL Group of companies, who is the proprietor of various well-known trademarks such as GHARI/GHADI Label, XPERT, VENUS, PRO- EASE, RED CHIEF, NAMASTE INDIA etc. in the field of Cosmetics, FMGC, Footwear, Wind Energy, Real Estate, Dairy Products etc. Plaintiff averred that it originally conceived, coined and adopted the trade mark/label XPERT in the year 1993 in relation to dish-wash liquid, powder and bars, cleaning preparations, washing soaps, washing powder, detergent cakes, toiletries, bleaching preparations and substances for laundry use, cleaning, polishing, scouring abrasive preparations, perfumery, essential oils etc. and allied and cognate goods, through its predecessors.
4) Plaintiff adopted the said trademark/label in the year 1993 through its predecessor and since then plaintiff had been continuously and uninterruptedly using the same in relation to their goods in the course of trade. Plaintiff filed various applications for registration of trademark/label XPERT under the Trade Marks Act 1999, for the goods mentioned therein falling in different classes.
5) Plaintiff averred that it represents its said trade mark/label in composite label/trade dress formats, in an artistic manner including in distinct get-up, lettering style etc. and the said trade marks/labels have been undergoing constant changes over the years, in the course of trade, owing to the demands of trade, aesthetics, need for constant evolution, freshness and changing consumer taste. However, the essential features thereof have been CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.3 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi constant and the word XPERT has throughout been the material and essential part of the said trade mark/label of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has placed pictorial representation of its formative trademark/trade dress label as under: -
6) Plaintiff further averred that the art work involved in the plaintiff's trade mark/label are original within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 1957 and plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of the copyright involved in the said trademark.
7) Plaintiff averred that it maintains the highest standards of manufacture and trade and invests enormous amount of money and efforts on Research and Development activities and the goods are manufactured and traded under strict quality specification of a very high order. Plaintiff's goods and business under the said trademark/labels are global in character and carries on its said goods and businesses there under, in many countries of the world and has built up handsome sales under their trademark/label and achieved sales running into crores of rupees and in the concerned financial year of filing of the suit, plaintiff's financial figures were Rs.270,13,99,785/-. As per plaint, plaintiff had been continuously promoting their goods and business under their trademark/labels through print/audio/visual media, advertisements and publicity in leading newspapers, distribution of trade literature, trade hoarding's and boards etc. and has already spent enormous amounts of money and efforts thereon and in year 2021-22, plaintiff spent Rs.18,57,605.99/- on it.
CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.4 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
8) Plaintiff averred that it is the owner and proprietor of the trademark/label both under the statutory as well as under the common law in relation to their said goods and business and nobody can be permitted to use or deal with the same/similar trademark/label either as a trade. Plaintiff averred that its trademark/label has become 'well known' within the meaning of provisions of Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
9) Plaintiff has been taking legal actions in India both by way of Civil Suits and Criminal actions against the various pirates and has also taken various injunctions order in its favour.
10) Plaintiff averred that defendant Sarvjeet and Sons Chemical Products Pvt. Ltd is an incorporated company and is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of detergent powder, detergent cake, liquid detergent and all other related, allied and cognate products. Plaintiff averred that defendant has dishonestly and malafidely adopted the mark/label wherein word EXPERT forms essential part as their trademark for the impugned goods and started using the same. Plaintiff averred that it has no objection to use of the word VIN in the impugned trademark/label, but the EXPERT is forming material and essential part of the impugned trademark of the defendant and the same is identical/deceptively similar to the said trade mark XPERT of the plaintiff. The placement of the impugned word-mark in wavy elliptical format in the impugned trademark/label has also been copied from the plaintiff's trademark/label XPERT. The defendants are representing, CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.5 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi displaying and advertising the impugned products on various online portals with the words VIN EXPERT written in similar fashion in order to cause confusion and deception, revealing their dishonest and malafide intention and adoption. Plaintiff has shown side by side representation of the competing trademark/label/trade dress are as under:
11) Plaintiff averred that its goods are sold through the same shops where the impugned goods of the defendant is being sold and the same class of purchasers are involved in purchasing the goods of plaintiff and defendant at the grocery shops/departmental stores and e-commerce websites and because of impugned business activity of defendant, the confusion and deception is being ensued in the market and the trade and amongst the consumers.
12) It is pleaded in the plaint that defendant adopted and is using the impugned trademark in relation to impugned goods fraudulently and with sinister motives and out of positive greed with a view to take advantage and to trade upon the reputation of CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.6 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi the trademark of the plaintiff and further with a view to calculate deception and confusion in the markets and to pass off their impugned goods and business as that of the plaintiff. Defendant is the dishonest and mala fide user of the impugned trademark/ label in relation to impugned goods and business. It is also pleaded in the plaint, that defendant is not the proprietor of the impugned trademark and has adopted and is using the same without the leave and license of plaintiff and thus, defendant has no right, authority or liberty to use the impugned trademark in relation to their impugned goods and business or for any other specification of goods and business whatsoever being in violation of the Plaintiffs rights therein.
13) It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was fully aware of, the rights, users, tremendous goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. Plaintiffs trademark/ label which is unique and arbitrary are otherwise being adversely affected/tarnished/ prejudiced/diluted and eclipsed thereby and/or likely to be so.
Plaintiff averred that by the impugned adoption and user of the impugned trademark, defendant is infringing registered trade marks of the plaintiff; passing off and enabling others to pass off their goods and business and not only that, the defendant is guilty of dilution, tarnishment, falsification and unfair and unethical trade practices.
14) As per plaint, due to the defendant's impugned activities, plaintiff is suffering huge losses both in business and in reputation and such losses are incapable of being assessed in monetary terms. Unwary purchasers and trade are being deceived as to the origin of goods and business. The defendant's gains are CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.7 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi plaintiffs losses. Hence, the suit by the plaintiff.
15) In the suit, plaintiff has prayed for following relief: -
a) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant by itself as also through their individual proprietors, Partners. Directors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf from soliciting, networking, manufacturing, Marketing, using, selling, displaying, advertising or by any other mode or manner (including through any online medium/websites/platforms/ social media) dealing in or using the impugned trademark/label VIN EXPERT/ or any other trademark/label identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark/label XPERT/ in relation to their impugned goods and business of manufacturing and marketing of Detergent Powder, Detergent Cake, Liquid Detergent and all other related. allied and cognate products or from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to: -
I) Infringement of the plaintiff's registered Trademarks/labels.
II) Passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff by violating common law rights in the plaintiff's CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.8 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi said Trademarks/labels.
III) dilution, tarnishment, falsification and unfair and unethical trade practices.
b) Restraining the defendant from disposing off or dealing with its assets including its shops and premises, or any other assets as may be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court during the course of the proceedings and on the defendant' disclosure thereof and which the defendant is called upon to disclose and/or on its ascertainment by the plaintiff as the plaintiff is not aware of the same as per Section 135 (2) (c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as it could adversely affect the plaintiff's ability to recover the costs and pecuniary reliefs thereon.
c) For an order for delivery up of all the impugned finished and unfinished materials bearing the impugned and violative trade mark/or any other deceptively similar trade mark/label including its blocks, labels, display boards, sign boards, trade literatures and goods etc. to the plaintiff for the purposes of destruction and erasure.
d) For an order for rendition of accounts of profits earned by the defendant by their impugned illegal trade activities under the impugned trademark and a decree for the amount so found in favour of the plaintiff on such rendition of accounts. In the alternative to rendition of accounts, a decree for damages of Rs.3,00,000/-.
e) For an order for cost of proceedings, and CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.9 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
f) For such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
16) In the present case, exparte ad-interim injunction order was passed in favour of plaintiff vide order dated 06.03.2025. A Local Commissioner was appointed, who filed her report along with photographs. The said ad-interim injunction order was made absolute vide order dated 31.10.2025.
PLEA OF DEFENDANTS
17) Summons of the suit were issued to defendant. Defendant was duly served on 19.09.2025 and defendant put in appearance through counsel but written statement was filed after lapse of stipulated period that too without any application seeking condonation of delay. Thus, it was ordered on 03.02.2026 that the written statement filed beyond the stipulated period, shall not form part of record. Except for one occasion i.e. 23.09.2025, no one appeared for defendant on any date after service.
18) Thereafter plaintiff filed present application under Order XIII A CPC for summary judgment stating that plaintiff relies upon the averments in the plaint. Plaintiff averred that since the defendant did not appear on service of dasti summons and no written statement on behalf of defendant, is on record, then all assertions and allegations in the plaint are deemed to be admitted. Hence, there remains no real prospects of defending the claim by the defendant. Plaintiff averred that in Levi Strauss & Co. v. Rajesh Agarwal, 2018 IAD (Delhi) 622, it was held that once the commissioner has filed the evidence along with his report, it CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.10 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi becomes evidence in the suit itself. Plaintiff averred that as per Order 26 Rule 10 (2) CPC, it is not mandatory to examine the commissioner to admit the report of the commissioner as evidence in the suit. Plaintiff prayed that a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, granting damages and costs and grant the prayers as sought by the plaintiff in plaint.
19) I heard ld. counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the plaint and the documents.
APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS, FACTS AND LAW
20) Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff took the attention of the Court to the pictorial representation of their products to contend that the visual impression gathered from the trade dress of the competing products of plaintiff, have been substantially copied by the defendant. Ld. Counsel argued that the defendant has adopted and started using, selling, soliciting and networking for the same trademark in relation to its impugned goods and business and is otherwise dealing with it in the course of trade without the leave and license of the plaintiff despite the fact that the plaintiff is registered proprietor of its said trademark/label in various classes i.e. 3, 4, 8, 20, 21, 25, 29. 30, 32, 34, 35 and 43. Ld. counsel averred that there is every likelihood that an unwary and gullible customer will get confused. In support of his submissions, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RSPL Health Private Ltd. Vs. M/s Deep Industry, IA No.10669/2014 in CS (OS) No.1660/2014, decided on 10.11.2014 .
21) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.11 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi contentions and perused the documents and the submissions made by the counsel for the plaintiff at bar.
22) The basic principles on which the law of infringement of intellectual property rights is based are: -
I) To protect the consumers for being misled;
II) To maintain purity and morality in trade, close or deceptive similarity, affinity and proximity is not permissible;
III) To preserve the reputation and goodwill of bonafide owner of intellectual property rights.
23) The broad principle on which the foundation of the right to restrain the user of a similar name, was enunciated in British Vacuum Cleaner Co. Ltd. v. New Vacuum Cleaner Co. Ltd., (1907) 2 Ch. 312, referred to and relied upon in Office Cleaning Services Limited v. Weiminster Office as under:
"The foundation of the right to restrain the user of a similar name is the principle that no one is entitled to represent his business or goods as being the business or goods of another by whatever means that result may be achieved and it makes no difference whether the representation be intentional or otherwise; but a distinction has been and must always be drawn between cases in which the trade name or the part of it in question consists of word or words complained of, is or are of the character of a fancy word or words and primarily have no relation to such business or article but only to the person carrying on the business or dealing in the article".
24) It was in view of this principle that it has been held that if it can be established that the descriptive word or words has or have acquired among the public, or that a class of the public likely to deal with the business or goods in question, a subsidiary CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.12 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi or secondary meaning denoting or connoting the business or the origin of the article, the person claiming to restrain the user of that word or those words, can obtain the relief he seeks.
25) The term "mark" has been denied in the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as under:-
"2. Definition and interpretation - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
I) (m) "mark" includes, a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of goods, packaging or combination of colours or any combination thereof".
26) The term 'trade mark' has been defined in S. 2 (zb) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as a mark capable of being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of others and may include shape of goods, their packaging and combination of colours; and a registered trade mark or a mark used in relation to goods or services for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods or services, as the case may be, and some person having the right as proprietor to use the mark; and if any mark is used in relation to other provision of this Act, a mark used or proposed to be used in relation to goods or services for the purpose of indicating or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods or services, as the case may be, and some person having the right, either as proprietor or by way of permitted user, to use the mark whether with or without any indication of the identity of that person, and includes a certification trade mark or collective mark.
CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.13 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
27) In the case of Laxmikant v. Patel, AIR 2002 SC 295, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is common in the trade and business to adopt a name, and the courts should protect the goodwill attached to the business name. An action for passing-off will then lie wherever the defendant company's name, or its intended name, is calculated to deceive, and so to divert business from the plaintiff, or to occasion a confusion between the two businesses.
28) In the case of Baker v. Master Printers Union of New Jersey, 47 USPQ 69 at 72 (D.N.J.1940), it was held that:
"The most successful form of copying is to employ enough points of similarity to confuse the public with enough points of difference to confuse the courts. Few would be stupid enough to make exact copies of another‟s mark or symbol."
29) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. and Co., Mysore AIR 1972 SC 1359 held as under: -
"According to Karly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade (9th edition paragraph 838):
Two marks, when placed side by side, may exhibit many and various differences vet the main idea left on the mind by both may be the same. A person acquainted with one mark, and not having the two side by side for comparison, might well be deceived, if the goods were allowed to be impressed with the second mark, into a belief that he was dealing with goods which. bore tile same mark as that with which he was acquainted. Thus, for example, a mark may represent a game of football; another mark may show players in a different dress, and in very different positions, and yet the idea conveyed by each might be simply a game of football. It would be too much to expect that persons dealing with trade- marked goods, and relying, as they frequently do, upon CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.14 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi marks, should be able to remember the exact details of the marks upon the goods with which they are in the habit of dealing. Marks are remembered rat her by general impressions or by some significant detail than by any photographic recollection of the whole. Moreover, variations in detail might well be supposed by customers to have been made by the owners of the trade mark they are already acquainted with for reasons of their own."
30) I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by ld. counsel for plaintiff in the light of above pronouncements of Superior Courts and have also perused the documents filed along with plaint, which is duly supported with statement of truth.
31) Perusal of plaint and documents shows that the plaintiff holds an extensive portfolio of various registrations within various classes for the XPERT Trademarks, as mentioned in para 7 & 8 of the plaint and defendant's adoption for goods that are prima-facie similar to plaintiff's product range which increase the risk of consumer confusion and dilution of the distinctiveness of plaintiff's trademark.
32) In the instant case, the comparative analysis of the trademarks in question reveals that the Impugned Trademark bears a deceptive resemblance to the Plaintiff's established "XPERT". The Impugned Trademark bears a deceptive similarity to the plaintiff's trademark/label.
33) Thus, from the afore-noted analysis that defendant's adoption of the Impugned Trademark "VIN EXPERT" is not in good faith and by emulating plaintiff's registered trademark, the defendants have attempted to capitalize on the goodwill, reputation, and proprietary rights of plaintiff and the conduct by CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.15 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi defendant not only presents a serious risk of misleading the public but also suggests an intention to benefit from the plaintiff's market presence. There is a possibility that the public might erroneously believe in a non-existent business relationship between the parties, or even by mistake purchase the defendants' products for those of plaintiff which creates the potential confusion thereby encroaching upon the plaintiff's statutory trademark rights.
34) From the averments made in the plaint and the documents placed on record, I do find a clear cut case of infringing the intellectual property rights of the plaintiff. Since the written statement of the defendant has not been accepted on the record, there is no challenge to the case of plaintiff. The case of plaintiff is based on documents showing registration of the trade mark in favour of plaintiff. The report given by Local Commissioner establishes the infringing activity of defendant. In these circumstances, I do find that it is a fit case to pass summary judgment.
35) A decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant to restrain it by itself through its directors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on behalf of defendant, from soliciting, networking, manufacturing, marketing, using, selling, displaying, advertising or by any other mode or manner (including through any online medium/websites/platforms/social media) dealing in or using the CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.16 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi impugned trademark/label "VIN EXPERT"/ or any other trademark/label identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark/label "XPERT"/ , in relation to its impugned goods and business or manufacturing; and marketing of Detergent Powder, Detergent Cake, Liquid Detergent, and all other related, allied and cognate products or from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to infringement of plaintiff's afore-said registered trademark/labels; passing off and violation of plaintiff's common law rights in the plaintiff's afore-said trademark/label.
36) Defendant is therefore, further liable to hand over all the materials seized during visit of Local Commissioner, for their destruction, to the plaintiff. Thus, defendant is directed to hand over all such items as per inventory prepared by the Local Commissioner, to the AR of plaintiff as and when such demand is made by the plaintiff.
37) In respect of damages, ld. Counsel for plaintiff referred and relied upon several case laws, which are Coty Germany GMBH v. XERYUS Retails Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine DEL 4273; AERO Club v. M/s. Sahara Belts, 2023:DHC:8423; LT Foods Ltd. v. Saraswati Tading Company, MANU/DE/4467/2022; Sandisk LLC & Anr. v. EXCEL Marketing, 2023:DHC:2057; RSPL Health Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. DEEP Industries, CS(OS) No.1660/2014, order dated 10.11.2024; and Dharampal Satyapal Foods Ltd. v. Mr. Mehul CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.17 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi Bhai & Anr. 2023:DHC:2335.
38) As far as damages are concerned, ld. counsel argued that since defendant infringed the intellectual rights of plaintiff and did not opt to come clean, it is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. He preferred damages on assumption rather than going for rendition of account. The judgments passed in Coty Germany (Supra), AERO CLUB (Supra) & Sandisk (Supra) were referred to show that summary judgments were passed in those cases, which were also having similar kind of circumstances. Some of these judgments were also relied upon to show that damages were also awarded for infringement of Intellectual Property rights.
39) In the case of AERO Club (supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred to IPR Rules as framed by Delhi High Court, in order to make assessment of damages. Rule 20 of the IPD Rules 2022 provides that: -
"20. Damages/account of profits A party seeking damages/account of profits, shall give a reasonable estimate of the accounts 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 authorised;
iv) The duration of the infringement;
v) Degree of intention/neglect underline the
CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala)
District Judge (Commercial Court)-01,
Page No.18 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
infringement;
vi) Conduct of the infringing party to mitigate the
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."
40) In Koninlijke Philips and Ors. v. Amaze Store and Ors., 2019:DHC:2185, the Court laid down following standards for grant of damages: -
"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 summarised 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 + causes minor impact to the Costs + Partial Plaintiff damages
(iv) Repeated knowing infringer which Injunction + causes major impact to the Plaintiff Costs + Compensatory damages
(v) Infringement which was deliberate Injunction + and calculated Costs + (Gangster/scam/mafia) +willful aggravated contempt of court damages (compensatory + additional 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."
41) As far as present case is concerned, the report of Local Commissioner mentions the description of articles found and seized during visit of site of defendant. Same is as follows: -
CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.19 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi S. Particulars No.
1. 25 gunny bags of white colour, each containing 20 Rolls of packaging material, bearing impugned mark Vin Expert
2. 10 gunny bags, each containing 10 packets of Vin Expert Detergent of 3 kg.
3. 5 gunny bags each containing 25 packets of Vin Expert Detergent of 1 kg.
4. 1 gunny bag, containing 6 packets of Vin Expert Detergent of 1 kg.
5. 29 brown carton boxes, each containing 80 bars of Vin Expert (Pink Colour) of weight 110 gms and 220 gms.
6. 3 sacks containing orange wrappers/packaging material bearing impugned trade mark Vin Expert (weighing 25 kg)
7. 2 sacks containing orange wrappers/packaging material bearing impugned trade mark Vin Expert (weighing 10 kg)
8. 2 Rolls of green wrapper/packaging material bearing impugned trade mark Vin Expert (weighing 20 kg)
9. 1 Roll of green wrapper/packaging material bearing impugned trade mark Vin Expert (weighing 1 kg)
10. 4 Rolls of Pink wrapper/packaging material bearing impugned trade mark Vin Expert (weighing 17 kg)
11. 5 Rolls of orange wrapper/packaging material bearing impugned trade mark Vin Expert (weighing 70 kg)
12. 41 packed sacks, each containing 25 packets of Vin Expert Detergent of 1 kg.
13. 120 semi packed packets of Vin Expert Detergent of 1 kg each.
14. 50 semi packed packets of Vin Expert Detergent of 5 kg each.
15. 1 Roll of green wrapper/packaging material bearing impugned trade mark Vin Expert (weighing 1/2 kg)
16. Flex Board of Blue colour, bearing Company name "Sarvjeet and Sons Chemical Products Pvt. Ltd", and on edges/sides of flex board was bearing photos of packaging of product bearing trade mark "Vin Expert".
CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.20 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi
42) Thus, it is well apparent that defendant had been involved in full fledged use of infringing trade mark for sale of its products. However, defendant did not produce record of sale either before Local Commissioner or before this court. In that situation, this court has to make a presumptive assessment for damages. There cannot be any second thought that defendant is liable to pay damages to plaintiff for infringing its trade mark rights.
43) The products found during visit of Local Commissioner included 1820 kg of detergent with infringing trade mark. Besides that, wrappers and packaging materials were also found in bulk. There is no document on the record to show sale of infringing products, so as to show the annual turnover, or price of product per Kg. The documents placed on the record by plaintiff, which relate to defendant, include information uploaded on the website of defendant, GST portal etc. The advertisement of defendant on the e-commerce platform refer to annual turn over from 0-40 L and its registration with GST since 25.10.2018. All the products shown therein, show use of the infringing trade mark. In these circumstances, it can be safely presumed that defendant had been using the infringing trade mark for at least last three years from the date of filing of this suit. It can be also presumed on the basis of advertisement of defendant on its web page that it would be having annual turn over to the tune of Rs. 40 lacs. A notional damages @ 5% of annual turnover, in my opinion should be minimum damages to be paid by defendant to the plaintiff on account of infringing the trade mark rights of the plaintiff. As per this calculation, defendant is liable to pay CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.21 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi damages of Rs.2 lac per year for use of infringing trade mark.
DECISION
44) Damages in the sum of Rs.6 lacs (Rs.2 lacs x 3) is awarded in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
45) It is well apparent that defendant by way of its infringing acts compelled the plaintiff to launch this prosecution, while incurring expenses. Therefore, defendant is to pay a cost of Rs.1.5 lacs along with cost of this suit, as per rules. Certificate of Lawyer's Fee shall be furnished within ten days. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room as per rules.
Digitally signed by PULASTYAPULASTYA PRAMACHALA PRAMACHALA Date:
2026.03.24 18:41:17 +0530 Pronounced in the (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) Open Court on this District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, 24th Day of March, 2026 Patiala House Court, New Delhi CS (COMM.) No. 79/25 (Pulastya Pramachala) District Judge (Commercial Court)-01, Page No.22 of 22 Patiala House Court, New Delhi