Delhi High Court - Orders
Ramada International,Inc vs La-Ramada World Private Limited & Anr on 11 July, 2022
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 470/2021 & I.As. 16225/2021, 4182/2022, 8762/2022
RAMADA INTERNATIONAL,INC ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Ashwani Balayan, Mr. Pranay
Bali & Ms. Shreya Kunwar,
Advocates (M-9773770851)
versus
LA-RAMADA WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED
& ANR. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate.
SI Amit Kumar, PS Okhla Industrial
Area (M-8709276134)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 11.07.2022
1. The brief background of the present case is that the Plaintiff - Ramada International, INC has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademark, passing off, dilution and tarnishment of trademark, acts of unfair competition, rendition of accounts, delivery up, damages, costs, and other reliefs.
2. The grievance of the Plaintiff, who is the registered proprietor of the marks 'RAMADA'/'RAMADA HOTELS', is that the Defendants are using identical marks/names 'LA RAMADA'/'LA RAMADA WORLD'/'LA RAMADA WORLD RESORT & SPA, 'LA RAMADA WORLD' (logo), in respect of their business relating to tourism, vacation packages, etc.
3. Vide order dated 23rd September, 2021, this Court had granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in the following terms:
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 470/2021 Page 1 of 7 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:11.07.2022 17:35:50"6. The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. The defendants, their partners, directors, etc. are restrained from using in any manner the plaintiff's trade mark RAMADA or any other mark which is deceptively or confusingly similar to the said mark including but not limited to the impugned marks LA RAMADA, LA RAMADA WORLD, LA RAMADA WORLD RESORT & SPA, , etc. Defendant No. 1 will also take steps to change the company's name 'La-Ramada World Pvt. Ltd.' forthwith. The domain names as noted above would also be changed or suspended within two weeks."
It was seen, however, that the Defendants continued to use the said impugned marks and started moving the infringing content from the infringing domain names to different domain names. As recorded in the order dated 14th December, 2021, the Defendants had commenced the use of a new domain name that was 'www.lrwworld.com'. Thus, vide order dated 14th December, 2021, the interim injunction granted on 23rd September, 2022 was extended to the said domain name as well.
4. Thereafter, on 15th March, 2022, it was further recorded that two further domain names had been registered by the Defendants, being 'www.lrw.co.in', 'www.lrworld.co.in' . The Defendants had also created a new Instagram account by the name 'laramadaworld_lrw'. The Defendants were also stated to have been using a Facebook account called 'LA RAMADA WORLD' and updating a large number of posts on the said social media website. On the said date, after seeing the contumacious conduct of the Defendant No.2, a Local Commissioner was also appointed. The ex parte injunction granted on 23rd September, 2022 was also confirmed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 470/2021 Page 2 of 7 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:11.07.2022 17:35:50 on the said date. The relevant extracts of the said order dated 15th March, 2022 are set out below:
"8. Subsequently, vide order dated 14th December, 2021, a new website of the Defendants with the domain name 'www.lrwworld.com' was also injuncted by the Court.
9. Various applications have been filed by the Plaintiff since then, and the Defendants have also been served through various modes, at different stages of the suit, including by speed post, electronic mail, and dasti service of the injunction orders, summons, plaint and contempt application. Defendant No.2 is one of the directors of Defendant No. 1.
10. It is submitted by Mr. Balayan, Id. Counsel for the Plaintiff, that the Defendants are well aware of the proceedings but are not complying with the order of the Court. He submits that they have been served through all modes, hence the applications under Order XXXIX Rule 2A have been filed.
14. Additionally, since the Defendants are choosing not to appear before the Court and continue to run their business, it is deemed appropriate to appoint a Local Commissioner. Mr. Rohan Joshua Kapoor, Advocate (M. No.8800934843; EmaiI;[email protected]; Enrolment No.: D/2878/2020) who is present in the Court, is appointed as the Local Commissioner to undertake the following tasks;...."
5. On the last date of hearing i.e., 30th May, 2022, the Local Commissioner's report was received which showed that the Defendants were continuously and brazenly using the mark 'LA RAMADA' and its variants despite the injunction order. The report also reveals that the Defendant No.2 had denied access to the Local Commissioner to various documents and materials bearing the injuncted marks. The photographs Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 470/2021 Page 3 of 7 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:11.07.2022 17:35:50 which were filed, including that of the external signage, stationery, envelopes, letterheads, all showed the continuous use of the mark 'LA RAMADA'. The Defendant No.2 also sought to conceal material bearing the mark 'LA RAMADA' in a cupboard and did not give access to the same, to the Local Commissioner. The further two domain names, being 'www.lrw.co.in' and 'www.lrworld.co.in' were seen to be used by the Defendants qua which directions were issued against MEITY to issue blocking orders against the said websites. Bailable warrants were also issued against Defendant No.2 - Mr. Dharmender Kumar Sharma, after perusing the contents of the Local Commissioner's report and the two applications filed by the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.
6. Today, Mr. Balyan, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff, informs the Court that the said websites have now been blocked by MEITY on 8th June, 2022. However, the very next day, the Defendants have started a new website called 'www.lrwworld.co'. The Court has accessed the latest website online during the course of hearing. A perusal of the said website shows that the brand name 'LA RAMADA', including the pictures of the Plaintiff's hotels, is being used for vacation packages. The website is fully functional.
7. The SHO, P.S. Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi has placed on record the status report through SI Amit Kumar who is present in Court. The status report states that the bailable warrants were executed and the direction was given to the Defendant No.2 to appear today. However, he is not present today. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, ld. Counsel for the Defendants submits that the Defendant No.2 is suffering from COVID-19.
8. Heard ld. Counsels for the parties. The manner in which the Defendants are continuously and contumaciously violating the orders of the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 470/2021 Page 4 of 7 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:11.07.2022 17:35:50 Court and running their websites and their business from their offices clearly shows that they have no respect or regard for the orders of the Court. The conduct of the Defendants prima facie constitutes contempt of the orders passed by this Court.
9. Accordingly, non-bailable warrants are issued against Defendant No.2
- Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sharma, through the SHO, P.S. Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, Block A, South West District, New Delhi. The SHO shall execute the said non-bailable warrants against Defendant No.2, within a period of two days. A Rapid Antigen test for COVID-19 shall be conducted on Defendant No.2 before taking him into custody. Upon testing negative, he can be taken into custody. If he tests positive, the SHO shall execute the warrants after one week.
10. The SHO of the concerned area while executing the non-bailable warrants shall also seize the accounting related records of the Defendants with the help of the Local Commissioner - Mr. Rohan Joshua Kapoor, Advocate (M.No.8800934843; Email;[email protected]) who had earlier visited the Defendants' premises.
11. The said Local Commissioner shall visit the Defendants' premises on 12th July, 2022 along with the concerned SHO and take into custody all the accounting related records, including any electronic records, and place the same on record by the next date. For the said purpose, the Defendants shall cooperate with the Local Commissioner and concerned SHO and shall also give access to the Local Commissioner of their accounts, either in hard copy form or in electronic form. If the said accounts are password protected, the access thereof shall be given to the Local Commissioner. The bank accounts statements, if available online or through the respective banks, shall also be Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 470/2021 Page 5 of 7 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:11.07.2022 17:35:50 procured by the Local Commissioner and be placed on record by the next date.
12. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed at Rs. 75,000/-. The same shall be borne by the Plaintiff at this stage. The concerned police officials and Local Commissioner shall observe COVID-19 protocol.
13. In view of the fact that the domain name 'www.lrwworld.co' also contains extensive use of the mark 'LA RAMADA' and 'LA RAMADA WORLD', including photographs, and is clearly in violation of the injunction order passed by this Court on 23rd September, 2022, MEITY is directed to issue blocking orders against the said domain name as well.
14. The Defendants are also stated to have Google Business listings on the Google platform, by the name 'La Ramada World Pvt. Ltd.' Google LLC (India office) is directed to deactivate/take down the said listings, and implement this order, within a period of 48 hours.
15. If the Plaintiff comes across any other listings of the Defendants on any other online platforms like Justdial, Pinterest, etc., the Plaintiff is permitted to write to such other online platforms for taking the said listings down, which shall be given effect to within 48 hours by the said platforms, without any specific orders by the Court.
16. Let reply on behalf of the Defendants to the contempt application be filed within two weeks. In the said reply, the Defendants shall also place on record the details of their bank accounts and the bank statements since the incorporation of their company. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks.
17. The present order shall be served by Mr. Balyan, ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff upon Mr. Neel Mason, ld. Counsel for Google who regularly Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 470/2021 Page 6 of 7 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:11.07.2022 17:35:50 appears before this Court.
18. List on 10th October, 2022.
19. Order dasti.
20. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of orders shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J JULY 11, 2022 Rahul/DK/AD Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 470/2021 Page 7 of 7 By:DEVANSHU JOSHI Signing Date:11.07.2022 17:35:50