Delhi District Court
L'Oreal S.A vs Tarun Sankhla on 6 April, 2023
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMM. COURT-2)
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) 437/2020
L'OREAL S.A. ......plaintiff
14, rue Royale,75008,
Paris France
through
Ms. Meena Bansal
Constituted Attorney
r/o 96, Sukhdev Vihar,
Mathura Road, New Delhi-110025
Versus
Tarun Sankhla ......defendant
trading as M/s LEORA COSMETICS
Behind Tehsil Office,
Mela Chowk Road, Sojat City,
Distt. Pali, Rajasthan - 306104
also as & at
M/s LEORA COSMETICS
Behind Tehsil Office,
Mela Chowk Road, Sojat City,
Distt. Pali, Rajasthan - 306104
Date of institution : 22.12.2020
Date of submissions : 06.04.2023
Date of judgment : 06.04.2023
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark, passing off and damages. Plaintiff's case in brief is that it is engaged in the business of manufacture, Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 1 of 18 distribution and sale of a wide range of cosmetics, skin care, toiletries and beauty products including make-up, preparations, perfumery preparations, essential oils, cosmetics, preparations for colouring and bleaching the hair, hair dyes and tints, preparations for waving and setting the hair, shampoos, hair sprays, non- medicated preparations for the care and the beauty of the hair, non-medicated preparations for the care and the beauty of the skin, toilet soaps, dentifrices, sun-tan preparations, personal deodorants and accessories used and other allied/related products. It is stated that ever since its bonafide adoption in about the first decade of 1900, the Plaintiff has been using the mark L'OREAL, various stylized labels/word per se over long and continuous period of time as a trade mark as also as an essential part of its trade name in relation to its said goods and business. It is stated that in addition to its word per se user, the plaintiff over a period of time has been using its said trade mark in various stylized and artistic form and labels and which have been created and are being created over a period of time.
2. Case of the plaintiff is that the word/mark L'OREAL remains a key and material part thereof and the term of said trademark includes the said stylized, bearing/formative labels and usages. It is stated that the word/mark L'OREAL has all the trappings of an invented mark and as such, is extremely strong mark. It is stated that since about the year 1909, the plaintiff has been bonafidely, continuously, commercially, openly, exclusively and to the exclusion of others, uninterruptedly and in the course of trade and as proprietor thereof being using its said trade mark/trade name L'OREAL as trade marks in relation to its said goods and business and carrying on its said goods and business Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 2 of 18 there under and has built up a worldwide and globally valuable trade, goodwill and reputation there under and acquired proprietary rights therein. It is further stated that plaintiff's said goods and business under the said trademark/label and trade name as also the goodwill and reputation achieved there under is global in character and extends into India as well.
3. It is averred that ever since 1909, when the plaintiff launched its said goods and business under the said trade mark/label and trade name in Europe the plaintiff has been expanding the use of its said trademark and trade name in relation to its said goods & business to cover more and more countries across the globe. It is stated that the plaintiff's said goods under its said trademark/label and trade name are branded and sold in about 130 countries of the world and across all continents and regions including in India wherein in addition, the plaintiff also enjoys its trans-border reputations and users and that plaintiff's said goods are sold and traded by the plaintiff directly or through a wide network of its associates, affiliates, subsidiary companies, licensees and through a wide marketing network including through retail as also through internet and e- commerce.
4. It is further pleaded that with the passage of time the plaintiff has been creating and using various trademark/label in relation to its said goods and business and that these trademarks are being used individually and/or in conjunction with its L'OREAL trademarks or other trademarks. It is stated that example of some such trademarks are GARNIER, VICHY, MATRIX, KERASTASE PARIS, FUEL, LANCOME, FRUCTIS, GLAMSHINE, DOUBLE EXTENSION, VOLUME Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 3 of 18 SHOCKING, ELVIVE, ELSEVE, ARMANI MANIA, HYPNOSE, MAYBELLINEetc. It is further stated that the plaintiff also has a wide range of brand portfolio of its various range of products, inter-alia including its L'Oreal Professional range and that the plaintiff has trademark registration in India for its trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is stated that the artwork involved in the said trademark/label is original artistic works within the meaning of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957 belonging exclusively to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is the owner and proprietor thereof and hold copyright therein. It is pleaded that no one can be permitted to reproduce, use or otherwise deal with the plaintiff's said copyright in any manner without the leave and licence of the plaintiff. It is further stated that the copyright in the said artwork contained in the said trademark/label and on the plaintiff's products bearing the said trademark/label are well protected and enforceable within the ambit of Copyright Act as well as by virtue of India's membership to the Berne Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention and the International Copyright Order.
5. Plaintiff's case further is that plaintiff has regularly and continuously been promoting its said distinctive trademark and trade-name and through extensive advertisements, publicities, promotions and marketing & marketing research and the plaintiff has been spending enormous amounts of moneys, efforts, skills and time thereon. It is stated that the plaintiff has been doing so through various means and modes including through the visual, print and electronic media and all of which have tremendous reach, visibility, distribution, availability and circulation world over including in India. It is stated that the Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 4 of 18 plaintiff's said hair care products and services are known, recognized, demanded, sold and traded world over with reference to its said trademark and trade-name. It is further stated that the members of the trade, industry, the consumers and general public at large world over and in India are well aware of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's said trademark and trade-name and the plaintiff's said hair care products and services. It is further stated that plaintiff's said trademark/labels are well known Trade Marks within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Act and that the said trademark and trade-name is one of the most prominent and valuable trademarks of the plaintiff. It is stated that plaintiff is the proprietor thereof including of its copyright as also of its goodwill and reputation under the statutory and common law and in view thereof, the plaintiff has the exclusive rights to the use thereof and nobody can be permitted to use the same or any other deceptively similar trademark/label/copyright thereto in any manner whatsoever in relation to any specification of goods or services without the leave and license of the plaintiff.
6. Case of the plaintiff further is that the defendant is engaged in manufacturing, marketing, selling, trading, use of cosmetic items, detergent powder and soap, shampoo, mehandi, mehandi powder hair colour, mehandi cone, henna, herbals items and plaintiff is not aware of the exact constitution of the defendant and they are called upon to disclose the same upon causing appearance before this court. It is stated that defendant has adopted and started using, soliciting, trading under the trademark LEORA, LEORA COSMETICS, LEORA CARE, LEORA CARE COSMETICS and tradename M/s LEORA COSMETICS in relation to its impugned goods. It is stated that Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 5 of 18 defendant is also operating a website www.leoracosmetics.com, www.leoracare.com , through which the defendant is selling and advertising its impugned goods under the impugned trademark and trade name and that the defendant is also selling and advertising through other modes like Social Media platforms including Facebook [https://www.facebook.com/leoracare/] Instagram [https://www.instagram.com/leoracare/ ] and that these websites of the defendant, social media pages/platforms are interactive in nature and the goods can be sold, solicited, purchased, delivered and/or trade can be solicited through websites all over including the jurisdiction of this Court. It is stated that the impugned trade mark and trade name hereinafter includes and added as the impugned trademark, tradename, domain names, social media pages/platforms using the trademark "LEORA".
7. It is averred that the impugned trademark, tradename, domain names, social media pages/platforms adopted and being used by the defendant in relation to their impugned goods and business thereof are identical with and deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff's said trademark and trade- name in each and every respect including phonetically, visually, structurally, in its basic idea and in its essential features. It is further stated that the defendant is using all kind of false description on its impugned goods to wrongly link the impugned goods with the plaintiff and to wrongly convey to the public and customers that the impugned goods are coming from the source and origin of the plaintiff. It is stated that the impugned goods and business thereunder are also of the same/similar/allied/cognate to that of the plaintiff's and that the Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 6 of 18 defendant has adopted and started using the impugned trademark, tradename, domain names, social media pages/platforms dishonestly, fraudulently and out of positive greed with a view to take advantage and to trade upon the established goodwill, reputation and proprietary rights of the plaintiff in the plaintiff's said trademark and trade-name.
8. It is further pleaded that by the defendant's impugned adoption, use, deception and confusion in the market is ensuing or is likely to so ensue and that the plaintiff's said trademark and trade-name are otherwise being diluted and eclipsed thereby. It is stated that any person not knowing clearly the relationship between the parties to this action is bound to be confused by the defendant's impugned adoption and use and might well do business with the defendant thinking that they are dealing with the plaintiff or that some strong, vital and subtle links exist between the plaintiff and the defendant. It is stated that due to the defendant's impugned activities, the plaintiff is suffering huge losses both in business and in reputation and such losses are incapable of being assessed in monetary terms. It is pleaded that unwary purchasers and trade are being deceived as to the origin of goods or business and the Defendant's gains are plaintiff's losses and that the plaintiff has no access to the defendant's accounts and the defendant is liable to render their accounts to the plaintiff and to make good to the plaintiff the profits and business earned by it.
9. Case of the plaintiff further is that the plaintiff learnt about the defendant [proprietor of the impugned tradename M/s LEORA COSMETICS, as per Trade Marks registry records] and their impugned adoption and use of the impugned trademark Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 7 of 18 during the lockdown in last week of April 2020, when the publication in Trade Marks Journal No. 1945-0 of the impugned trademark LEORA under no. 4111121 in Class 03 caught eye of the plaintiff. It is stated that the plaintiff immediately filed the opposition against such impugned trademark under application no. 1041958 dated 25/04/2020 of defendant and that defendant has filed its counter-statement and further evidence by way of affidavit has been filed by the plaintiff in the matter. It is submitted that in 1st week of December, 2020, it was revealed that the defendant is selling, soliciting, trading, networking its goods through the impugned websites www.leoracosmetics.com , www.leoracare.com , and Social Media platforms including Facebook [https://www.facebook.com/leoracare/] Instagram [https://www.instagram.com/leoracare/]. It is stated that all these platforms are interactive in nature and can be accessed and goods can be purchased, sold, delivered within the jurisdiction of this Court.
10. It is stated that being aggrieved, the plaintiff caused an inquiry in the market, which revealed that the defendant had also started soliciting, trading and networking from December 2020, in the markets of South Delhi and adjoining areas -Saket, Mehrauli, Malviya Nagar, Hauz Khas etc. under the impugned trademark and trade name. It is stated that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit and that the plaintiff is having prima-facie case and balance of convenience in its favour. It is stated that defendant will use the counterfeit goods under the impugned trade mark and defendant's infringing activities are likely to have a dynamic effect on the plaintiff's business. It is stated that there is Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 8 of 18 irreparable loss and injury due to the acts and conduct of the defendant. Hence, the present suit seeking for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants and its agents from infringing of trademark , passing off has been filed.
11. On 21.12.2020, on an application u/O XXXIX rule 1 & 2 CPC, interim relief was granted to the plaintiff and defendant was restrained till further orders from infringing the trademark and tradename of the plaintiff and passing off the impugned goods. There was no appearance on behalf of defendant despite service of summons, so he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 04.05.2022.
12. This Court has heard submissions advanced by Sh. S. K. Bansal with Sh. Siddharth Swain , Learned counsels for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.
13. Ld. counsel for plaintiff submitted that since about the year 1909, the plaintiff has been bonafidely, continuously, commercially and to the exclusion of others, uninterruptedly and in the course of trade and as proprietor using trade mark/trade name L'OREAL in relation to its goods and business. It is submitted that the Plaintiff's trademark/labels are well known Trade Marks within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Act and Defendant has adopted and started using, soliciting, trading under the trademark LEORA, LEORA COSMETICS, LEORA CARE, LEORA CARE COSMETICS and tradename M/s LEORA COSMETICS in relation to its impugned goods and that the defendant is also operating a website www.leoracosmetics.com, www.leoracare.com, through which the defendant is selling and advertising its impugned goods under Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 9 of 18 the impugned trademark and trade name on social media platforms including Facebook [https://www.facebook.com/leoracare/], Instagram [https://www.instagram.com/leoracare/] and these websites of the defendant, social media pages/platforms are interactive in nature and business of defendant deceptively and confusingly similar to the plaintiff's said trademark and tradename in each and every respect. It is submitted that the defendant by its impugned adoption and user of the impugned trademark, tradename, domain name, social media pages/platforms is violating the plaintiff's right in the said trademark and tradename and thereby passing off and enabling others to pass off their goods and business as that of the plaintiff as well as diluting the plaintiff's proprietary rights therein. It is submitted that the defendant is further infringing the plaintiff's aforesaid registered trademarks and that the defendant cannot even be exonerated from the charges of falsification, unfair and unethical trade practices.
14. It is submitted that the defendant's impugned adoption and plaintiff's tradename are otherwise being diluted and any person not knowing clearly the relationship between the parties to this action is bound to be confused by the defendant's impugned adoption and use and might well do business with the defendant thinking that they are dealing with the plaintiff and due to the defendant's impugned activities, the plaintiff is suffering huge losses both in business and in reputation and such losses are incapable of being assessed in monetary terms. It is submitted that the plaintiff has no access to the defendant's accounts and the defendant is liable to render their accounts to the plaintiff and Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 10 of 18 to make good to the plaintiff the profits and business earned by it.
15. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that as there is no appearance of the Defendant, therefore, the claims, rights, evidence of the plaintiff and documents filed by the Plaintiff are deemed to be admitted under the provision of Order XII Rule 2- A CPC. It is submitted that law is well settled that damages in such cases must be awarded, who chooses to stay away from the proceedings of the Court, should not be allowed to enjoy the benefits of evasion of court proceedings. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has prayed for costs and has submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to grant nominal damages and punitive over and above any pleadings by the plaintiff.
16. In support of his submissions, counsel for plaintiff relied upon Parsvnath Developers Limited Vs. Vikram Khosla, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 3147; Louis Vuitton Malletier Vs. Iqbal Singh and Ors (2019) 258 DLT 760 ; Time Incorporated vs. Lokesh Srivastava and Anr. (116 (2005) DLT 599); Cartier International AG & Ors Vs. Gaurav Bhatia & Ors. (2016(65) PTC 168)[Del] ; Jockey International Inc and Anr. Vs. R. Chandramohan and Ors. (2014) 211 DLT 757) and Disney Enterprise,Inc and Ors. vs. Dhiraj and Ors (ILR (2014) 3 Del 2150).
17. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff further submitted that this plaint is supported with a verification/affidavit in the form of statement of truth of AR of plaintiff, therefore no exparte evidence is required to be adduced in view of the observations of our Hon'ble High Court in this regard. In support, he relied upon on Imagine Marketing Private Imited vs M/s Green Accessories Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 11 of 18 through its proprietor & Anr. , CS (Comm) 564/2020 decided on 21.03.2022 wherein Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr. v. Balraj Muttneja &Ors. [CS (OS) 3466/2012 decided on 20th February, 2014], was quoted while holding that no ex parte evidence would be required. The same has been reiterated by the Court in S. Oliver Bernd Freier GMBH & CO. KG v. Jaikara Apparels and Ors. [210 (2014) DLT 381], as also, in United Coffee House v. Raghav Kalra and Ors. [2013 (55) PTC 414 (Del)]. The relevant observations from the judgment in Disney Enterprises Inc. (supra), are as under:
"3. Though the defendants entered appearance through their counsel on 01.02.2013 but remained unrepresented thereafter and failed to file a written statement as well. The defendants were thus directed to be proceeded ex- parte vide order dated 04.10.2013and the plaintiffs permitted to file affidavits by way of ex- parte evidence.
4. The plaintiffs, despite having been granted sufficient time and several opportunities, have failed to get their affidavits for leading ex-parte evidence on record. However, it is not deemed expedient to further await the same and allow this matter to languish, for the reason that I have in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. Vs. Gauhati Town Club MANU/DE/0582/2013 held that where the defendant is ex parte and the material before the Court is sufficient to allow the claim of the plaintiff, 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. In this case, AR of plaintiff Smt. Meena Bansal w/o Sh. Shravan Kumar Bansal filed her Statement of Truth. In her statement of truth, she stated that statements made in paragraphs 1 to 28 of plaint are true and correct to her knowledge and based on records maintained by the plaintiff company; statements Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 12 of 18 made in paragraphs 29-31 or parts thereof are based on the legal advise received and believed to be true and correct and para 32 is the prayer and that there is no false statement or concealment of any material fact, document or record. She further stated that all documents in her power, possession, control or custody pertaining to the facts and circumstances of the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff had been disclosed. She further stated that the contents of the documents annexed with the list of documents were the true copies of the documents referred to and relied upon by her.
19. Plaintiff has placed on record representation of the Trademark/Label of the plaintiff Ex. PW1/1; representation of defendant's trademark/label Ex. PW1/2; screenshots from defendant's website, facebook, instagram, showing the impugned tradename/trade mark of the defendant Ex. PW1/3; status, registration certificate, relevant page of trademarks journal with respect to the plaintiff's registered trademark/label and receipt of the Legal Proceeding Certificate with respect to the plaintiff's registered trademark/label Ex. PW1/4; list of plaintiff's trademark details and registrations Ex. PW1/5; documents showing promotional material, goodwill, reputation and extensive use of the plaintiff's trademark/label/tradename Ex. PW1/6; Status of defendant's trademark under no 4111121 in class - 03 and the notice of opposition filed by the plaintiff under no. 1041958 and counter-statement filed by the defendant Ex. PW1/7 and power of attorney in favour of the constituted attorney Ex. PW1/8.
20. After hearing the submissions advanced and perusal of material on record, this Court finds no reason to Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 13 of 18 disbelieve the averment of plaint which has remained unchallenged. Plaintiff has established that it is the registered owner of the registered trademark L'OREAL and various stylized labels/word. Plaintiff has established that the registered trademarks "L'OREAL and various stylized labels/word" is well known marks as defined u/s 2 (1) (zg) of the Trademark Act. Thus, plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the trademarks and it is shown that defendant is misusing and infringing the trademarks of the plaintiff and passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff. This not only causes loss of profit to the plaintiff but also results in the inferior products and services made available to the public at large , who are deceived by the conduct of the defendant.
21. On appreciation of evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that defendant is using the trademark "L'OREAL and various stylized labels/word" in relation to the above said impugned goods and business of counterfeit goods used by the plaintiff and that there is a high degree of phonetic similarity and degree of resemblances which can very easily create confusion in the minds of members of the general public. The plaintiff being the holder of a registered trademark is entitled to protection against its infringement and the relief claimed. In view of the abovesaid reasons, plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant, who by itself as also through his individual proprietors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf is restrained from manufacturing, marketing, selling, using, soliciting, importing, exporting, displaying, advertising, purveying or selling in markets including offline Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 14 of 18 mediums, the retailers and/or distributors or through the online marketplaces or social medias etc or through its impugned websites www.leoracosmetics.com , www.leoracare.com and Social Media platforms including Facebook {https://www.facebook.com/leoracare/}, Instagram {https://www.instagram.com/leoracare/} or by any other mode or manner dealing in or using the impugned goods under the impugned Trademark {domain names, social media platforms/pages} LEORA, LEORA COSMETICS, LEORA CARE, LEORA CARE COSMETICS, www.leoracosmetics.com; www.leoracare.com {https://www.facebook.com/leoracare/};
{https://www.instagram.com/leoracare/} and tradename M/s LEORA COSMETICS and/or any other word/mark which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark and tradename L'OREAL and other formative trade mark of the plaintiff, in relation to the trade and business of COSMETIC ITEMS, DETERGENT POWDER AND SHOP, SHAMPOO, MEHANDI, MEHANDI POWDER, HAIR COLOUR, MEHANDI CONE, HENNA, HERBALS ITEMS and other allied/related products and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to infringement of plaintiff's registered trademark; passing off and violation of the plaintiff's rights in the plaintiff's trademark/tradename; dilution of the plaintiff's rights in its tradename.
22. In Jockey International Inc & Anr. Vs R. Chandra Mohan & Ors. 2014 (59) PTC 437 (Del) in para 43, it was held that damages must be awarded in such cases where defendants Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 15 of 18 choose to stay from the proceedings of the Court and that defendants should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of evasion of Court proceedings. A party who chooses not to participate in Court proceedings and stays away must suffer the consequences of damages as it cannot produce its account books. There is larger public purpose involved to discourage such parties indulging in such rights of deception and even if the same has a punitive element, it must be granted.
23. In Hero Honda Motors Ltd. vs Shree Assuramji Scooter's case (supra), our High Court observed about the need of awarding damages against defendants who chose to stay away from the proceedings of the Court. It was further noted that every endeavour should be made to discourage such parties which indulge in acts of deception.
24. The time has come when the Courts dealing with actions for infringement of trade marks, copy rights, patents, etc. should not only grant compensatory damages but award punitive damages with a view to discourage and dishearten law breakers who indulge in violations with impunity out of lust for money so that they realize that in case they are caught, they would be liable not only to reimburse the aggrieved party but would be liable to pay punitive damages also, which may spell financial disaster for them. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances noted above, this Court is of the considered view that plaintiff is entitled to lumpsum costs of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of economic and commercial advantage which the defendant tried to gain at the expenses of the enviable reputation which has been created by the plaintiff apart from injunction. Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to costs towards pleader's fee litigation expenses and Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 16 of 18 Court fees . The present suit was filed on 22.12.2020. Litigation expenses are assessed as Rs.22,000/- and court fees deposited by the plaintiff is Rs. 6700/-.
25. In view of the aforenoted findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. A decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff against the defendant is hereby passed. Defendant, who by itself as also through his individual proprietors, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf is restrained from manufacturing, marketing, selling, using, soliciting, importing, exporting, displaying, advertising, purveying or selling in markets including offline mediums, the retailers and/or distributors or through the online marketplaces or social medias etc or through its impugned websites www.leoracosmetics.com , www.leoracare.com and Social Media platforms including Facebook {https://www.facebook.com/leoracare/}, Instagram {https://www.instagram.com/leoracare/} or by any other mode or manner dealing in or using the impugned goods under the impugned Trademark {domain names, social media platforms/pages} LEORA, LEORA COSMETICS, LEORA CARE, LEORA CARE COSMETICS, www.leoracosmetics.com; www.leoracare.com {https://www.facebook.com/leoracare/};
{https://www.instagram.com/leoracare/} and tradename M/s LEORA COSMETICS and/or any other word/mark which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark and tradename L'OREAL and other formative trade mark of the plaintiff, in relation to the trade and business of Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 17 of 18 COSMETIC ITEMS, DETERGENT POWDER AND SHOP, SHAMPOO, MEHANDI, MEHANDI POWDER, HAIR COLOUR, MEHANDI CONE, HENNA, HERBALS ITEMS and other allied/related products and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to infringement of plaintiff's registered trademark; passing off and violation of the plaintiff's rights in the plaintiff's trademark/tradename; dilution of the plaintiff's rights in its tradename.
26. Plaintiff is also held entitled to total costs of Rs.1,28,700/-. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(Dictated and announced today i.e. On 06th April 2023) (VINAY KUMAR KHANNA) District Judge (Commercial Court-02) South Disttt., Saket, New Delhi.
Loreal vs Tarun Sankhla Page 18 of 18