Delhi District Court
Seb.S.A vs Mr. Arun Kumar Arora on 23 April, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAN MOHAN SHARMA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL) 12
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
T. M. No.: 79/2011
Unique ID no. 02401C0411932003
SEB.S.A.,
Les4M, Chemn Du Petit Bois,
69130 Ecully, France. ...Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr. Arun Kumar Arora
Proprietor of M/s Madan Industries
B105, G.T. Karnal Road
New Delhi110033
Formerly trading as Moulinex Enterprises (India)
New Delhi
2. M/s Madan Industries
B105, G.T. Karnal Road
New Delhi110 033. .....Defendants
Date of institution of the suit: 23.09.1997
Reserved for judgment on: 23.04.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 23.04.2012
Suit for perpetual injunction, infringement of
trade marks, copyright, passing off and damages.
JUDGMENT: This is a suit for perpetual injunction, infringement of trade SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 1 of 25 2 mark, copyright, passing off and damages filed by plaintiff.
2. The facts as propounded in the pleadings stated briefly are:
(i). The plaintiff is a manufacturer and seller of electrical apparatus used in the preparation of food stuff and beverages; vacuum cleaners; electrical irons, electrical switches; connectors; cables; reels and spools; weighing operators and instruments under the trade mark MOULINEX.
(ii). The trade mark MOULINEX is used by the plaintiff in a stylish and special form which has been duly registered under no. 312081 dated 02.02.1976 in class VII and under 312083 dated 2.02.1976 in class IX.
(iii). The word 'MOULINEX' also forms a memorable part of the corporate name of plaintiff.
(iv). In the course of trade and business, the trade mark MOULINEX has acquired tremendous reputation and goodwill amongst the consumers in the India and the world wide. It has become an icon of superior quality.
(v). Over the years, the plaintiff has achieved an envious turnover of the products sold under its brand name. It has been SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 2 of 25 3 incurring substantial expenditure on recurring basis on the promotion and advertisement of its products sold under the trade mark MOULINEX.
(vi). The word MOULINEX used in logo script in a particular style constitutes original artistic work within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Copyright Act. The trade mark and copyright has become distinctive of the goods of the plaintiff.
(vii). The plaintiff for the first time come to know in September, 1996 that the defendant has adopted the trade mark MOULIMEX with ulterior motives to ride upon and to take undue advantage of the goodwill of the plaintiff. The trade mark and the artistic work as used by defendant are substantially and deceptively similar to plaintiff's trade mark and copyrights. The defendants' use is per se dishonest. It is likely to cause deception and confusion in the mind of consumer to the disadvantage of the plaintiff.
(viii). The plaintiff through a Notary Public on 01.10.1996 purchased the two mixers and noted the following:
a) Qty. 2 Mixers marked as follows: SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 3 of 25 4
i) On the printed carton MOULIMEX 650 KenmoreIII with MOULINEX log, ISI Specification no.
D1/AC/M/517 with packing date 09.09.1996;
manufactured by M/s Madan Industries, B105, G.T. Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Delhi33; and
ii) The Instructions Manual Receipt Book marked MOULIMEX650 KenmoreIII with MOULINEX logo and printedadministrative office Roxy Chemical and Plastic Industry, H10, ANSA Indl. Estate, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Bombay 400 072 with the packing date stamped 08.08.1996; and
iii) The mixers marked MOULIMEX KenmoreIII" and Rs.1,550/ each total value Rs.3,100/.
b) Qty. one Mixer marked
i) On the printed Carton "MOULIMEX500, Kenmore II"
with MOULINEX Logo, ISIS specification no.
D1/QC/M/517 with the packing date August, 1996 manufactured by Madan Indsutries, B105, G.T. Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Delhi33: and SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 4 of 25 5
ii) The Instructions Manual Recipe Book marked MOULIMEX650 KenmoreIII with MOULINEX Logo and printed Administrative office Roxy Chemical and Plastic Industry H/10 ANSA Indl. Estate, Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East) Bombay 400 072; and
iii) The mixi marked MOULIMEX in English and Arabic script with MOULINEX logo and knob also marked MOULIMEX @ Rs.950/ each total value of Rs.950/.
(ix). The acts and omissions of the defendants are prejudicial to the rights and interest of the plaintiff and hence this suit for perpetual injunction, infringement of trade marks, copyright, passing off an damages.
3. The defendants opposed the claim of the plaintiff making the following averments:
(i). Sh. Arun Kumar Arora is not the proprietor of Madan Industries. It is owned by his mother, Smt. Kanti Arora. He is carrying on his business in the name of M/s MOULIMEX Enterprises (India). The written statement has been filed on behalf of both the defendants and M/s MOULIMEX Enterprises SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 5 of 25 6 (India).
(ii). The nick name of late Sh. Madan Arora was "Mauli" a common household name which inspired the name MOULIMEX.
(iii). The trade mark of the plaintiff is liable to be removed from the register of the Trade mark. MOULIMEX Enterprises (India) has also applied for registration of the trade mark MOULIMEX and the Dy. Registrar of Trade Mark vide order dated 07.06.1995 has already granted the application of the defendant no. 2. Defendant no. 1 is using the trade mark with the consent and permission of MOULIMEX Enterprises (India).
(iv). The name of the plaintiff was and is not known in India. On the other hand, the good of the defendants have an enviable reputation all over this country.
(v). The products of the defendants bearing the trade mark MOULIMEX were advertised as for back as in the year 1978 and have since been continuously advertised by various modes.
(vi). The trademark MOULIMEX is duly registered under the Copyrights Act, vide registration no. A25096/79 with the Dy. SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 6 of 25 7 Registrar of copyrights vide certificate dated 17.08.1979 in favour of the defendant.
(vii). The defendant no. 1 have been using the mark MOULIMEX for the past twenty years along with M/s MOULIMEX Enterprises (India).
(viii). M/s Moulimex Enterprises (India) Ltd. has placed an order with M/s Madan Industries to manufacture mixers on their behalf in the year 199596. Defendant no. 1 and M/s Moulimex Enterprises (India) have been using the trade mark Moulimex for almost 20 years and the plaintiff was well aware of this fact. These facts have clearly been concealed by the plaintiff and its suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. In its replication the plaintiff denied the material averments of the written statement and reiterated the averments of the plaint.
5. With the available pleadings the following issues have been frame d on 24.10.2008 as under:
1. Whether defendants had been using the trade mark MAULIMEX for the past twenty years and the plaintiff was well aware of this fact? If so, it's SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 7 of 25 8 effects? OPD
2. Whether the registration of the trade mark MAULIMEX vide certificate of registration no. A 25096/79 date d 17.08.79 under the Copyright Act in favour of defendant no. 1 is of no consequence? If so, it's effects? OPP
3. If issue no. 2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff, whether defendants are guilty of infringement of copyright of the plaintiff? OPP
4. Whether the defendants are guilty of infringing the registered trade mark MAULINEX of the plaintiff in respect of the goods mentioned in the plaint? OPP
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for in the suit? OPP
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from the defendant, if so, to what amount? OPP
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 8 of 25 9 for delivery up as prayed for in the plaint? OPP
8. Relief.
6. The plaintiff has examined PW1 Sh. Gauri Shankar Ayyar as its only witness. The witness has tendered Ex.P1 to P6 as documentary evidence. The oral evidence of the witness is contained in affidavit Ex.PW1/A. The plaintiff has tendered in its evidence six documents. Ex. P1 is the Power of Attorney in favour of Mr. Gauri Shanker Ayar; Ex. P2 is the copy of the deed of assignment dated 29.06.04 with request dated 11.11.2004 filed with the Registrar of Trade Marks; Ex. P3 is the certified extract of the registrations for use in Legal Proceedings issued by the Registrar of Trade Mark; Ex. P4 are the copies of the invoices and documents (Ex.P4 is placed in the file of Suit no. TM 78/2011); Ex. P5 is the copy of the advertisements to show the propagation of mark MOULINEX and Ex. P6 is a copy of the order of Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
7. No evidence has been is led by the defendant. The defendants have been proceeded as exparte on 21.11.2007. They appeared on 18.01.2008 and 20.03.2008 subsequently and joined the proceedings. They have not joined the proceedings thereafter. SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 9 of 25 10
8. I have heard Dr. Sheetal Vohra, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and also perused the written submissions filed by the plaintiff.
9. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued in terms of the pleadings and the evidence on record stating that the case of the plaintiff has remained rebutted and unchallanged. It is further submitted that the case of the plaintiff has been proved duly manifested by the oral and documentary evidence on record which has come out unimpugned.
10. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has cited the following case law in support of her case:
1. M/s Modi Threads Ltd. Vs. M/s Som Soot Gola Factory & Anrs., 1993 PTC 32. (Title of the plaintiff accrues prima facie on the execution of the assignment deed. Nonregistration of same not coming in the way of preventing breach of trade mark).
2. Beiersdorf A. G. Vs. Ajay Sukhwani & Anr., 156(2009) DLT 83. (Initial adoption of trade mark by the defendant dishonest, then plea of laches or delay is immaterial).
SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 10 of 25 11
3. Messrs Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Messrs India Stationery Products Company & Anr. 1989 PTC
61. (In case of deceptively similar trade mark injunction is granted, though the defendant was holding copyright in the artistic work constituting the trade mark).
4. R. Madhavan Vs. S. K. Nayar, PTC (Suppl) (2) 221 (Ker) (DB). (Registration of copy right is not mandatory and does not give any additional right to the registered proprietor).
5. Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J. P. and Company Mysore, PTC (suppl) (1) 346 (SC). (for finding out confusion or deception, broad features of the trade mark have to be considered and not side by side comparison).
6. M/s Nirex Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s Man Chand Foot Wears Industries, 1984PTC97. (Minor differences in trade marks are immaterial if the essential features are common).
7. M/s Pidilite Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s Mittees Corporation and another, 1988(2) Arb. LR 3 (Delhi). SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 11 of 25 12 (Phonetic similarity of two trade marks is likely to cause deception/confusion)
8. K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar Vs. Ambal and Company, Kadras and Anr., PTC (Suppl) (1) 258 (SC). (Case of phonetic similarity)
10. Dabur (S. K. Burman) Vs. Vikas Pharma, 1983 PTC179. (case of phonetic similarity).
11. Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors, 2004 (28) PTC 121 SC. (in case of infringement either of trade mark or copyright, normally injunction must follow).
12. Milment Oftho Industries & Ors. Vs. Allegan Inc, 2004 (28) PTC 585 (SC). (Court is to see who is the prior adopter of trade mark globally).
11. After considering the submissions and the material on record my findings on various issues are as under: Issue no. 1: Whether defendants had been using the trade mark MAULIMEX for the past twenty years and the plaintiff was well aware of this fact? If so, it's effects?
12. The onus of this issue has been on the defendants. SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 12 of 25 13
13. The pleaded case of the defendants is that the defendant no. 1 has been using the mark MOULIMEX for the past twenty years along with M/s MOULIMEX Enterprises (India); M/s Moulimex Enterprises (India) Ltd. has placed an order with M/s Madan Industries to manufacture mixers on their behalf in the year 199596. Defendant no. 1 and M/s Moulimex Enterprises (India) have been using the trade mark Moulimex for almost 20 years and the plaintiff was well aware of this fact; these facts have clearly been concealed by the plaintiff and its suit is liable to be dismissed. It is also the pleaded case of the defendants that the name of the plaintiff was and is not known in India whereas on the other hand, the good of the defendants have an enviable reputation all over this country and that the products of the defendants bearing the trade mark MOULIMEX were advertised as for back as in the year 1978 and have since been continuously advertised by various modes.
14. The usage of trade mark, the period of use, the question of long knowledge and acquiescence (which is a facet of delay) on the part of plaintiff are factual matters. These matters when not admitted by the plaintiff, it was incumbent upon the defendants to prove these factual SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 13 of 25 14 aspects by leading evidence.
15. It is the defendant who wants the Court to believe in the veracity of the above facts. That is the reason the onus has been put on him. This could have been done by leading oral and documentary evidence as to the material facts by defendants and the onus would have stood discharged and shifted to the plaintiff.
16. It was thus for the defendants to prove that they had been using the trade mark MAULIMEX for the past twenty years as the necessary facts constituting this plea are within the special knowledge of the defendants and for this reason also they are under a legal obligation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to prove the same.
17. The other aspect of issue is acquiescence (which is a facet of delay) on the part of the plaintiff. On what basis the defendant pleads this is also a fact within its knowledge. No evidence having been led on this aspect also by the defendant.
18. For want of evidence by the defendant this issue is answered against the defendant.
Issue no. 2: Whether the registration of the trade mark MAULIMEX vide certificate of registration no. A25096/79 date d 17.08.79 under the Copyright Act in favour of defendant no. 1 is SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 14 of 25 15 of no consequence? If so, it's effects?
19. The onus of this issue has been on the plaintiff.
20. Copyright is a right given by the law to creators of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works and producers of cinematograph films and sound recordings. It is a bundle of rights including, inter alia, rights of reproduction, communication to the public, adaptation and translation of the work. Copyrights comes into existence the moment a work in which copyrights subsists is born.
21. Registration of copyrights is not the sinequanon for subsistence of copyright. Acquisition of copyright is automatic and it does not require any formality. It vests on the date of publication of any original literary, dramatic, artistic or musical work etc. in its author. However, certificate of registration of copyright and the entries made therein serve as prima facie evidence in a court of law with reference to dispute relating to ownership of copyright. As held in R. Madhavan Vs. S. K. Nayar, PTC (Suppl) (2) 221 (Ker) (DB) the registration of copy right is not mandatory and does not give any additional right to the registered proprietor.
22. The defendant has not entered into the witness box to prove its SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 15 of 25 16 copyrights registration and other incidental and ancillary matters. These are all factual aspects and for want of the evidence, no cognizance of them can be taken. Thus no adverse view can be taken against the plaintiff as the genesis of the right has not been established. In the case relied upon by the plaintiff as M/S Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/S India Stationery Products Company & Anr. 1989 PTC61 wherein it has been held that in case of deceptively similar trade mark injunction is granted, though the defendant was holding copyright in the artistic work constituting the trade mark, the ratio laid down duly applies to the facts of this case also.
23. Hence, the finding on this issue is returned in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 3: If issue no. 2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff, whether defendants are guilty of infringement of copyright of the plaintiff?
24. In view of the finding on the issue no. 2, and the evidence led by the plaintiff on record which has remained unrebutted and SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 16 of 25 17 unchallanged, by necessary implication the finding on this issue is returned in favour of the plaintiff.
Issue no. 4: Whether the defendants are guilty of infringing the registered trade mark MAULINEX of the plaintiff in respect of the goods mentioned in the plaint?
25. The oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is no material available with court to disbelieve the same. The law pronounced in M/s Modi Threads Ltd. Vs. M/s Som Soot Gola Factory & Anrs., 1993 PTC 32 wherein it has been held that title of the plaintiff accrues prima facie on the execution of the assignment deed and the nonregistration of same not coming in the way of preventing breach of trade mark comes to the aid of the plaintiff to establish its locus standi visàvis the cause of action.
26. The defendants have claimed independent right in the trade mark 'MAULIMEX'. The defendants have also set up in the pleadings the historical facts as to the reason for adopting the trade mark 'MAULIMEX'. However, for the reasons best known to them the defendants have played truant and shied away from entering into the witness box. Thus these facts are not established. SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 17 of 25 18
27. Defendants have claimed to be in the trade since long. In view of the long standing of the plaintiff and its trade mark, there is no reason to believe that they were unaware of the trade mark of the plaintiff. Thus by no stretch of imagination it can be imagined that the defendants were so naïve as to have coined and adopted a trade mark as 'MAULIMEX' which is deceptively similar to the trade mark of plaintiff as 'MOULINEX' in respect of same/similar goods of the same class. Thus on preponderance of probabilities the ignorance of defendants is feigned, pretence and moonshine.
28. The trade mark of the defendants is deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiff. On the face of it, the same is likely to cause confusion and deception in the mind of an ordinary prudent person of imperfect recollection. The similarity in the two trade mark is so manifest that there is no room for doubt about the infringement.
29. In Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J. P. and Company Mysore, PTC (suppl) (1) 346 (SC) it has been held as under:
"...To decide the question as to whether the plaintiffs' right to a trade mark has been infringed in a particular case, the approach must not be that in an action for passing off goods of the defendant SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 18 of 25 19 as and for those of the plaintiff. According to this Court in Durga Dutt v. Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, (1965) 1 SCR 737 at p. 754 = (AIR 1965 SC 980) :
"While an action for passing off is a Common Law remedy being in substance an action for deceit, that is, a passing off by a person of his own goods as those of another, that is not the gist of an action for infringement. The action for infringement is a statutory remedy conferred on the registered proprietor of registered trade mark for the vindication of the exclusive right to the trade mark in relation to those good (vide Section 21 of the Act). The use by the defendant of the trade mark of the plaintiff is not essential in an action for passing off, but is the sine qua non in the case of an action for infringement."
In the above case the Court further pointed out:
"In an action for infringement, the plaintiff must, no doubt, make out that the use of the defendant's mark is likely to deceive, but where the similarity between the plaintiff's and the defendant's mark is so close either visually, phonetically or otherwise and the Court reaches the conclusion that there is an imitation, no further evidence is required to establish that the plaintiff's rights are violated. Expressed in another way, if the essential features of the trade mark of the plaintiff have been adopted by the defendant, the fact that the getup, SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 19 of 25 20 packing and other writing or marks on the goods or on the packets in which he offers his goods for sale show marked differences or indicate clearly a trade origin different from that of the registered proprietor of the mark would be immaterial; whereas in the case of passing off, the defendant may escape liability of he can show that the added matter is sufficient to distinguish his goods from those of the plaintiff."
30. In the case of Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J. P. and Company Mysore, PTC (suppl) (1) 346 (SC) it has been further held as under:
"9. It is therefore clear that in order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. They should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him..."
31. Thus considering the class of consumers and the nature of adoption by the defendants it is manifestly clear that the defendant's have infringed the trade mark of the plaintiff. SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 20 of 25 21
32. This issue is held in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no. 5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction as prayed for in the suit?
33. Having established that the defendants have infringed the trade mark of the plaintiff and it has caused a legal injury to the plaintiff which is continuing as there is nothing to show that the defendants have ceased or desist from their acts and omissions, the entitlement of the plaintiffs for injunction is a logical corollary.
34. Hence this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no. 6: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from the defendant, if so, to what amount?
35. The purpose of awarding damages or compensation is to put a balm on the injury suffered by the plaintiff on account of tortuous conduct of the defendant. The approach is to set back the clock to restore status quo ante or put the plaintiff at the original position which existed prior to suffering of damage by the plaintiff.
36. The plaintiff has claimed consolidated damages @ Rs. 5 lakhs. In a trade marks violation case, the quantum of damages is the most difficult thing to establish. This is primarily for the reason that the best evidence is in the possession of the defendants. The defendants have SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 21 of 25 22 been playing truant in the instant matter. Thus the best evidence has eluded the Court. Thus the rendition of accounts is foregone possibility.
37. However, the circumstantial evidence can be considered to estimate the damages. In the present case the evidence of the plaintiff has not been impugned. I am of the view that as the defendants have used the plaintiff's trade mark for quite some time but the exercise of rendition of very complex in view of the number of transactions involved; categorization/bifurcation of transactions into different slots where the plaintiff's goodwill has been abused and where it has not been abused being a stumbling block; cumbersome calculations involved; the case being very old and a host of other factors which all cannot be illustrated here, the rendition of accounts may not be feasible. Therefore lumpsum and consolidated damages can be awarded.
38. Some guess work in such circumstances cannot be ruled out to award token damages. Considering the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff, the false stand taken by the defendants and all other attendant facts in my view the interest of justice would be served, if token SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 22 of 25 23 damages of Rs. 2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) are awarded to the plaintiff against the defendants.
39. This issue is answered accordingly.
Issue no. 7: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for delivery up as prayed for in the plaint?
40. The evil should be given a complete and decent burial.
41. Thus the delivery up of the infringing material is just and necessary to meet the ends of justice when the plaintiff has been successful in establishing its case.
42. Therefore this issue is rendered in favour of the plaintiff.
RELIEF
43. I, therefore, after considering the material on record and findings on the above issues, grant the following reliefs to the plaintiff:
(i). A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, representatives, assigns, officers, partners, servants, administrators etc. from using the mark 'MAULIMEX' or any other deceptively similar imitation of the plaintiff's trade mark 'MOULINEX' in any manner deceptively similar or nearly SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 23 of 25 24 resembling the plaintiff's trade mark in any way in respect of Mixer Grinders or any other allied or cognate goods or in any other way infringing the trade mark of the plaintiff.
(ii). A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, representatives, assigns, officers, partners, servants, administrators etc. from using the mark 'MOULINEX' in a manner as to cause substantial reproduction of plaintiff's logo/artistic work either in whole or in part etc. in any manner substantially similar or nearly resembling the plaintiff's in any manner as to infringe the Copyright of the plaintiff in the said artistic work.
(iii). A decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, representatives, assigns, officers, partners, servants, administrators etc. from using the mark 'MAULIMEX' or any other deceptively similar imitation of the plaintiff's trade mark 'MOULINEX' in any manner deceptively similar or nearly resembling the plaintiff's trade mark in any way in respect of Mixer Grinders or any other allied or cognate goods or in any other way and thereby passing off their goods as if they have association with or originate from the plaintiff.
SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 24 of 25 25
(iv). A decree for orders of delivery of infringing and other incriminating material like publicity/promotional material, blocks, stationery items, letter heads/printed material, packing material, etc. by the defendants, their agents representatives, assigns, officers, partners, servants, administrators etc. to the plaintiff for destruction.
(v). A decree for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) as token consolidated damages to the plaintiff payable by the defendants jointly and severally as damages.
(v). The plaintiff is awarded costs of this suit, which I quantify at Rs. 30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) consolidated.
44. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
45. After necessary compliance, the file be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court on this 23rd day of April 2012 (MAN MOHAN SHARMA) ADJ (Central)12, Delhi SEB SA Vs. Arun Kumar Arora TM 79/2011 Page 25 of 25