Delhi District Court
Veena Aggarwal vs Balaji Trading Company And Ors on 6 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-08
CENTRAL:TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI
CS (Comm) 5100/2021
CNR No.DLCT01-016685-2021
Veena Aggarwal
Trading as:
Power Electro Controls
Office at- RZ-70, Ravi Nagar
Extension, Khayala,
New Delhi-110018 ....Plaintiff
Vs
1. M/s Balaji Trading Company
Mrs. Kiran Sehgal (Proprietor)
Stall No.1, Mor Sarai Road,
Old Lajpat Rai Market,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. ...Defendant no.1
2. M/s Guru Mahima Electronics
Mr. Harish Kumar Sehgal (Proprietor)
M-39A, First Floor, Rajouri Garden
New Delhi-110027. ...Defendant no.2
3. Mr. Sahil Sehgal
M-39A, First Floor, Rajouri Garden
New Delhi-110027 ....Defendant no.3
Date of Institution : 03.12.2021
Date of Arguments : 11.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 06.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a commercial suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Trademark, Copyright, passing CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 1 of 29 off, dilution, delivery up and damages etc., as filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. In brief, facts of the case as made out in the plaint are that plaintiff is the owner and sole proprietor of firm i.e. Power Electro Control, which is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, marketing and distribution of electrical goods and accessories since April, 2020. It is averred that the proprietorship firm was established on 01.04.2000 by Late Sh. Bhushan Aggarwal, who died on 28.04.2021 and thereafter, the said business was succeeded by his wife i.e. plaintiff herein.
3. It is case of the plaintiff that in order to distinguish his products, Late Shri Bhushan Aggarwal in the year 2000 honestly and bonafidely conceived, coined and adopted the Trademark 'POWERMAN' in respect of Rotary switches, relays, rocker switches, terminal strips, volt and AM meters, inverters and UPS kits and commenced use of same as early as in April, 2020. It is averred that owing to tremendous popularity of POWERMAN brand among consumers and the relevant trade, the plaintiff adopted a number of POWERMAN marks (in both word and label forms) and also expanded his business for fan, heater, control panel and iron.
4. It is stated that plaintiff has unique color scheme, getup and layout with respect to its label and packaging being used by the plaintiff are also the subject matter of copyright registration as well as trademark registrations. It is averred that the plaintiff and its predecessor has been carrying the CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 2 of 29 abovesaid business under the mark POWERMAN by selling goods through its distributor and their agents (the defendants herein). It is stated that the defendant no.1 and 2 were the exclusive distributor of plaintiff's firm in Delhi for more than 10 years till September, 2021, after that plaintiff stopped supplying goods to them. It is further stated that defendant no.3 is the son of proprietor of defendant no.1 & 2 and was taking care of distributorship of plaintiff's owned by defendant no.1 and 2. It is further stated that the business of M/s Balaji Trading Company and M/s Guru Mahima Electronics was taken care by Mr. Harish Kumar Sehgal and Mr. Sahil Sehgal.
5. It is further case of the plaintiff that the brand 'POWERMAN' is a distinctive trade mark of the plaintiff only and the products offered by any other entity or person under a trademark that is identical or similar to 'POWERMAN' brand will cause immense confusion and deception in the market and effectively tarnish the tremendous goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the POWERMAN mark in India. It is stated that on account of nationwide use and advertising, the plaintiff's mark 'POWERMAN' has acquired factual distinctiveness and has got inextricably linked and associated with the plaintiff. It is further stated that plaintiff incurred substantial expenditure in order to promote/advertise their POWERMAN marked products across the length and breadth of the country. It is further stated that owing to long and uninterrupted usage, superior quality of the products offered and extensive advertising/promotional campaigns by the plaintiff for their CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 3 of 29 products under the mark POWERMAN, plaintiff has acquired substantial sales of its products and the plaintiff's mark POWERMAN can be termed a well known trademark within the meaning of Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
6. It is further case of the plaintiff that by virtue of its registration and prior use, the plaintiff got all the exclusive right, both under the common law and statutory rights to prevent any third party misuse of trademark POWERMAN by anyone. It is stated that the plaintiff is the registered owner of trade mark and defendant no.1 and 2 were the distributor of plaintiff's POWERMAN products in India and the defendant no.3 is the son of proprietor of defendant no. 1 and 2.
7. It is averred that in the month of August, 2021, plaintiff came to know that defendant no.2 has applied for registration of similar trade mark POWERMEN DLX under application no.5081849 in Class 9 in the name of Mr. Harish Kumar Sehgal, which is completely similar and identical to the plaintiff's trade mark POWERMAN and also came to know in the month of September, 2021 that the defendants were also selling the same counterfeited duplicate products under the Trade Mark POWERMEN DLX. It is stated that keeping in view of long standing relation with defendants, plaintiff tried to resolve the dispute amicably, but when the dispute remained unsolved, plaintiff through its advocate, served a cease and desist notice dated 29.09.2021 to the defendant no.2 on CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 4 of 29 05.10.2021 asking them to withdraw the trade mark applications filed before the Trade Mark Office and stop their unlawful activities. It is stated that instead of withdrawing the said trade mark application, the defendant no.3 applied for registration of similar and identical trade mark POWERMEN MAXX under application no.5156964 in the name of Sahil Sehgal. It is further stated that on 14.10.2021, plaintiff received reply of cease and desist notice from defendant no.2.
8. It is averred that the defendants in present case have not merely copied the trademark POWERMAN of the plaintiff by using the mark POWERMEN DLX and POWERMEN MAXX but also copied the color scheme, getup and layout of plaintiff's product packaging and due to the same, defendants not only misrepresenting the customers but are also causing serious damage to the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation in the mark POWERMAN which is a renowned brand and is expected to maintain a very high quality and standard.
9. It is stated that defendants are unlawfully misrepresenting themselves as a distributor of the plaintiff and using the mark POWERMAN in respect of goods for which, the plaintiff is the owner and proprietor. It is stated that immediately upon knowing about the said fact of infringement and passing off, plaintiff purchased products of defendants from the shop i.e. stall no.1, Mor Sarai Road, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and after purchasing the same, plaintiff from the invoice came to CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 5 of 29 know that defendants are also representing themselves as a distributor and selling the fake products to the customers of plaintiff under the mark POWERMEN DLX.
10. It is further case of the plaintiff that plaintiffs have the registered design for its product under design no.309854. It is stated that by use of illegal activities of the defendants, the plaintiff suffered a huge loss in their business and they have also suffered damages and injury to their name, goodwill and reputation and at this stage, plaintiff estimates the damages to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-. Hence, the present suit is filed.
11. Defendants contested the present suit by filing written statement (reply) to the suit while taking preliminary objections that present suit is not legally maintainable as the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks, copyright, passing off, dilution, damages, delivery up etc. for using the mark "POWERMEN DLX" and "POWERMEN MAXX", for which the defendant no.2 and 3 had filed applications for registration vide application no.5081849 and 5156964 and the application for POWERMEN DLX has been accepted by trademark authority and there is no deceptive similarities with ; that present suit is liable to be dismissed as the plaintiff is neither the owner of the registered trade mark nor the entity M/s Power Electro Controls is owned by the plaintiff ; that ... is altogether a different mark from that of the defendant, whose mark are POWERMEN DLX and CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 6 of 29 POWERMEN MAXX and the same have no direct or indirect resemblance similarity or familiarity or any connection whatsoever with it; the GST no. 07AEFPA4373K1ZJ of M/s Power Electro Controls is still in the name of deceased person; that on 24.09.2021, defendant no.2 has already filed two criminal complaints against the plaintiff vide DD no.77 and 90A at PS Rajouri Garden, Delhi as well as PS Kotwali Chandni Chowk.
12. On merits, the contents of plaint have been denied as wrong. It is submitted that plaintiff has agreed that the defendants are exclusive distributor of M/s Power Electro Controls in Delhi for more than 10 years, however, the said M/s Power Electro Controls had broken the distributorship license and on what basis or what process were followed for cancellation of distributorship, is best known to the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the mark POWERMAN is not a well known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is further submitted that there are number of marks registered in the name of POWERMAN and still the plaintiff does not have any issue in past and / or present for the said application/mark. It is further submitted that plaintiff herself admitted that the defendant no.1 and 2 were the distributor of trademark products under the trade mark POWERMEN of plaintiff and accordingly was permitted to use the trademark with its logo over its business card and invoices. It is further submitted that being the distributor, defendants have purchased goods from the plaintiff in lacs which are still lying in the godown of defendant and on the other hand, defendant has also given more than Rs.7-8 lacs CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 7 of 29 approx. as advance payment for goods and the goods of Rs.15 lacs approx. are also lying in broken condition, which were to be returned as per business dealings, but the plaintiff is neither willing to return Rs.7-8 lacs nor replaced the damaged goods worth Rs.15 lacs approx. It is further submitted that plaintiff has not filed any kind of documentary evidence to prove that the distributorship has been broken and after seeing the conduct of plaintiff, the defendant has removed the business logo i.e. POWERMAN of the plaintiff and now the defendant is using his accepted trade mark POWERMEN DLX. It is thus prayed that suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
13. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of defendants, wherein she denied the facts as mentioned in written statement of defendants while re-affirming the facts as mentioned in the plaint. It is submitted that the mark POWERMEN DLX of the defendants stand opposed by the plaintiff and the opposition proceedings are still pending and the other mark POWERMEN MAXX of the defendants also stands objected.
14. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 19.09.2024:-
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for delivery up? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages, if CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 8 of 29 yes, at what amount? OPP
4. Whether the plaintiff has no authority to file this suit as claimed by defendants? OPD
5. Whether there is no resemblance in the plaintiff's mark vis-a-vis defendant's mark ? OPD
6. Whether present suit is a counter-blast to the suit filed by the defendants against the plaintiff? If yes, to what effect? OPD
7. Relief.
15. In support of her case, plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and tendered her examination in chief by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 has relied upon following documents:-
1) Copy of death certificate of Late Sh. Bhushan Aggarwal i.e. Ex.PW1/1.
2) Copy of succession certificate i.e. Ex.PW1/2.
3) Copy of receipt and trademark application form and the legal proceeding certificate i.e. Ex.PW1/3.
4) Copy of TM-M for subsequent proprietor i.e. Ex.PW1/4.
5) Copy of registration certificate of trademark 1653374 and its renewal certificate i.e. Ex.PW1/5 (colly).
6) Plaintiff's label i.e. Ex.PW1/6.
7) Copy of business card of the defendant where CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 9 of 29 name of Mr. Harish Kumar Sehgal and Mr. Sahil Sehgal is mentioned i.e. Ex.PW1/7.
8) Copy of CA certified statement of sale figures and statement of promotional/advertisement expenses i.e. Ex.PW1/8.
9) Copy of statutory/registrations under Sales Tax and Goods and Services Tax i.e. Ex.PW1/9.
10) Copy of randomly selected sales invoices for goods sold under the trademark Powerman i.e. Ex.PW1/10 (Colly).
11) Copy of plaintiff's listing on e-commerce website i.e. India Mart Ex.PW1/11.
12) Copy of invoice for display of advertising bearing Bill No.3826 dated 21.01.2011 i.e. Ex.PW1/12.
13) Copy of bill bearing no.567 issued by the Prime publications i.e. Ex.PW1/13.
14) Copy of invoice issued by TW Business Associates dated 14.01.2003 i.e. Ex.PW1/14.
15) Copy of contract form/receipt issued by Adworld Informations & Publications dated 09.01.2003 i.e. Ex.PW1/15.
16) Copy of bill issued by Indian Business Directory dated 10.01.2002 i.e. Ex.PW1/16.
17) Various invoices issued by third party entity in the name of plaintiff i.e. Ex.PW1/17 (Colly).
CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 10 of 2918) Copy of Form TM-1 and the present online status of the trademark application no.5081849 i.e. Ex.PW1/18.
19) Copy of the notice dated 29.09.2021 i.e. Ex.PW1/19.
20) Copy of the delivery receipt dated 05.10.21 i.e. Ex.PW1/20.
21) Copy of delivery receipt dated 01.10.21 i.e. Ex.PW1/21.
22) Copy of the Form TM-1 and the present online status of the trademark application no.5156964 i.e. Ex.PW1/22.
23) Copy of the defendant no.2's reply to the cease and desist notice of plaintiff i.e. Ex.PW1/23.
24) Defendants label i.e. Ex.PW1/24.
25) Sample pictures of such fabricated packaging bearing information of the manufacturer, divergent from the original packaging's i.e. Ex.PW1/25.
26) Photocopy of defendant's product i.e. Ex.PW1/26.
27) Copy of the design registration certificate i.e. Ex.PW1/27.
28) Invoices of the infringing good purchased from defendants i.e. Ex.PW1/28.
(29) Copy of the service tax details of the defendant i.e. Ex.PW1/29.
CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 11 of 2930) Affidavit u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 i.e. Ex.PW1/30.
16. Defendants in their defence examined three witness i.e. Ms. Kiran Sehgal, Proprietor of Balaji Trading Company as DW-1, Sh. Harish Kumar Sehgal as DW-2 and Mr. Sahil Sehgal as DW-3. They tendered their examination in chief by way of affidavit as Ex.DW1/1, Ex.DW2/A and Ex.DW3/A. They relied upon following documents:-
1. Copy of trade marks status alongwith reply i.e. Ex.DW1/A (colly).
2. Copy of trade mark search reports alongwith reply i.e. Ex.DW1/B (colly).
3. Copy of dealer credential of GST alongwith reply i.e. Ex.DW1/C.
4. Copy of computer generated TM search report alongwith reply i.e. Ex.DW1/D (colly).
5. Copy of the complaint dated 24.09.2021 vide DD no.77 alongwith reply i.e. Ex.DW1/E (colly).
6. Copy of the complaint dated 24.09.2021 vide DD no.90A alongwith reply i.e. Ex.DW1/F (colly).
7. Copy of design of printing i.e. Ex.DW1/G.
8. Legal notice dated 29.09.2021 i.e. Ex.DW1/H.
9. Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act i.e. Ex.DW1/I.
17. Arguments have been advanced by Mr. Madhav CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 12 of 29 Anand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and also by Mr. Anil Kumar Saini and Mr. Dharmender Sharma, Ld. Counsels for defendants.
18. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the judgments mentioned below:
1. M/s South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. vs. General Mills Marketing Inc. & Anr., 2014 SCC Online Del 1953
2. New Bharat Overseas vs. Kian Agro Processing Private Limited & Ors., 2022 SCC Online Del 4575
3. Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s Allied Blender & Distillers Pvt. Ltd., 2015 SCC Online Del 10164
4. Hitachi Ltd. vs. Ajay Kumar Aggarwal & Ors., 1995 SCC Online Delhi 268
5. Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73
6. Tata Sons Ltd. vs. Manoj Dodia and Ors., 2011 SCC Online Del 1520
7. Larsen & Toubro Limited vs. Chagan Bhai Patel 2009 SCC Online Del 4349
8. Kirti Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC Online Del 3290
9. Registrar of Trade Marks vs. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Ltd., 1955 SCC Online SC 12.CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 13 of 29
19. Ld. Counsels for defendants have relied upon the Trade Mark Act, 1999 as well as judgment mentioned below:
1. Svapn Constructions vs. IDPL Employees Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., MANU/DE/0060/2006
2. Sunder Ind. vs. General Engg. Wks., 1982 RLR 133.
3. Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmeceuticals Ltd., MANU/SC/0199/2001
4. F. Hoffmann-la Roche & Co. Ltd. vs. Geoffrey Manner & Co. Pvt. Ltd., MANU/SC/0302/1969
5. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Swisskem Healthcare and Ors., MANU/MH/1771/2019.
6. Marico Limited vs. Agro Tech Foods Limited, MANU/DE/3131/2010
7. Micronix India vs. J. R. Kapoor, MANU/DE/0451/2003.
8. Bigtree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Brain Seed Sportainment Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., MANU/DE/5189/2017.
9. Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., MANU/DE/0045/2020.
10. Kalpana Sharma vs. Personal Care System, MANU/DE/2745/2008
11. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Ors. vs. CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 14 of 29 Harinder Kohli and Ors., MANU/DE/1333/2008.
12. Biswanath Hosiery Mills Limited and Ors. vs. Micky Metals Limited, MANU/DE/0572/2021.
13. Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd. vs. Parul Food Specialities (P) Ltd., MANU/DE/0150/2011.
14. Phonepe Private Limited vs. Ezy Services and Ors., MANU/DE/0775/2021.
15. Red Bull AG vs. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
and Ors., MANU/DE/1112/2022 and Trade Mark Act 1999.
20. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made on behalf of parties and also gone through the record as well as written submissions, as filed on behalf of plaintiff and defendants. My issue wise findings are as under. Issue no.4 is taken at first instance as it is regarding the authority of plaintiff to institute the present suit:-
Issue no.4:-
4.Whether the plaintiff has no authority to file this suit as claimed by defendants? OPD
21. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants.
Defendants have taken a preliminary objection in their written statements that plaintiff has no authorization to use various documents, registrations owned by late Mr. Bhushan Aggarwal. In this regard, PW-1 in her affidavit of evidence deposed that the plaintiff's firm i.e. Power CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 15 of 29 Electronic Controls was established by her late husband Sh. Bhushan Aggarwal and after his death, the said business was succeeded by the plaintiff and she proved the copy of succession certificate as Ex.PW1/3. PW-1 also proved the copy of transmission of trademark in her name issued by Trademark Registry as Ex.PW1/4. These facts are not disputed by ld. Counsel for defendants. Even a suggestion was not put to the plaintiff when she was in witness box. In facts that the plaintiff became proprietor of the firm M/s Power Electro Controls after death of her husband Mr. Bhushan Aggarwal as per Succession Certificate Ex.PW1/2 and also got transmitted the trademark in her name from the Trademark Registry, it is held that plaintiff has authority to file the present suit. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no.1 and 5:-
(1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP (5) Whether there is no resemblance in the plaintiff's mark vis-a-vis defendant's mark ? OPD
22. Issue no. 1 and 5 are taken up together as both these issues are interconnected. Onus to prove issue no.1 was upon the plaintiff and onus to prove issue no.5 was upon the defendants.
23. PW-1 Ms. Veena Aggarwal in her affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A deposed that her late husband Sh. Bhushan Aggarwal, in order to distinguish its product bonafidely coined and adopted the trademark 'POWERMAN' in CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 16 of 29 respect of rotary switches, relays, rocker switches, Terminal strips, volt and AM meters, inverters and UPS kits as early as in April, 2000 and proved the copy of registration certificate of trademark and its renewal certificate as Ex.PW1/5. As per PW-1, she succeeded the business of her husband after his death vide succession certificate Ex.PW1/2 and adopted a number of POWERMAN marks (in both word and label form) and proved the copy of Legal Proceedings Certificate as Ex.PW1/3 and the copy of TM- M for subsequent proprietor as Ex.PW1/4.
24. Defendant no. 1 Ms. Kiran Sehgal in her affidavit of evidence Ex.DW1/A deposed that defendant no. 2 and 3 had filed application for registration of mark POWERMEN DLX and POWERMEN MAXX and that POWERMEN DLX has been accepted by the trademark authority. She deposed that the plaintiff mark is altogether a different mark from that of defendant whose mark is POWERMEN DLX and POWERMEN MAXX and have no direct or indirect resemblance, similarity or familiarity or any connection whatsoever with it. DW-2 Mr. Harsh Kumar Sehgal and DW-3 Mr. Sahil Sehgal have also deposed in the same line as of DW-1 in their affidavit of evidence Ex.DW2/A and Ex.DW3/A.
25. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff argued that the defendants i.e. DW-1 and DW-2 have admitted in their cross examination that they were long standing distributor of the plaintiff and have not challenged the validity of registration of plaintiff's trademark. It is submitted that the goods of the parties are identical and the use of mark POWERMEN DLX and CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 17 of 29 POWERMEN MAXX is a deliberate tweaking of plaintiff's dominant feature POWERMAN by converting the singular to plural without altering the commercial impression or phonetic similarity in order to pass off the goods of the defendants as of plaintiff, as the goods of the parties are identical.
26. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for defendants argued that a trademark is not infringed if the use of it is permitted by the registered proprietor or owner as per Clause (c) of Sub- section 2 of Section 30 of Trademark Act. It is submitted that plaintiff has admitted in her cross examination that the defendant no.1 was the distributor of her husband, actual owner of trademark POWERMAN since 2007 and that the distributorship has not been cancelled. Ld. Counsel for defendants further argued that plaintiff has claimed that her trademark is a well known trademark, which is a false claim as there are only 117 well known trademarks in India as appearing in the list available on trademark website.
27. Ld. Counsel for defendants further argued that present suit is not maintainable as the same is filed against the proprietorship firm instead of proprietor. It is submitted that the defendant no.2 has created trademark POWERMEN DLX, by a combination of three words i.e. POWER which represents the electronic and electric power items as a generic word and MEN refers an individual specialized in the installation and maintenance of equipment for electric power and DLX means 560 in roman numericals i.e. D+L+X = 560 which is a form of measuring the electricity.
CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 18 of 29It is submitted that there is no deceptive similarity in the trademark of plaintiff and defendants.
28. A pictorial view of the trademarks of the parties as appearing on the boxes which were put to plaintiff during her cross examination by the defendants i.e. Ex.PW1/X3 to X6 is as follows;
29. I have perused the case law cited. Every case is based on its on facts. Any infringement apart from parties allegations against each other and the material proved on record, has to be seen from the aspect of common man, who is the consumer. First it has to be seen whether there exists any similarity and if the answer is in the affirmative, then it is required to be seen whether there is any likelihood of the consumer being confused between the two. The comparison of the two trademarks has to be done not only from the aspect of visuality but also from the aspect of phonetic similarity. If the pronunciation of both the words generate CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 19 of 29 the similar phonetic effect, then the same has to be considered. For deciding so, the same has to be done from the aspect of a consumer, who does not go to the market with trademarks in his memory and just has a general impression of the name of the product and if the prominent features of the name in his memory are similar, then he is bound to be confused. The consumer has no side by side comparison of the two trademarks and the similarity test has to be done from the aspect of the consumer. The two trademarks may not be the exact copy of each other but even then can be similar from the aspect of the consumer.
30. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Cadila Health Care Ltd. Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73 laid down certain guidelines for deciding the issue of deceptive similarity.
1) the nature of marks (word/label/composite marks)
2) Degree of similarity between the competing marks, including phonetic and visual similarity.
3) Nature of disputed goods
4) Demography of the area where goods are used and class of purchasers
5) Mode of purchasing the goods
6) Similarity in the goods
31. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories 1965 SCR (1) 737, held as under:
"In an action for infringement, the Plaintiff must, no doubt, make out that the use of the Defendant's CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 20 of 29 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 get-up, 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;...... When once the use by the Defendant of the mark which is claimed to infringe the Plaintiff's mark is shown to be "in the course of trade", the question whether there has been an infringement is to be decided by comparison of the two marks. Where the two marks are identical no further questions arise; for then the infringement is made out...."
32. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another case titled as Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Another vs Karanveer Singh Chhabra, Civil Appeal No.10638 of 2025 held as under and I quote:
"The dominant feature of a mark may assist in crossing the preliminary threshold of analysis, but the ultimate inquiry must focus on the overall impression created by the mark - especially in the context of the relevant goods, trade channels, and target consumers.CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 21 of 29
The proper test is not to place the two marks side by side to identify dissimilarities, but to determine whether the impugned mark, when viewed independently, is likely to create an impression of association or common origin in the mind of the average consumer. Even if a particular component of a mark lacks inherent distinctiveness, its imitation may still amount to infringement if it constitutes an essential and distinctive feature of the composite mark as a whole."
33. DW-2 in his cross examination has given a strange explanation for using the trademark POWERMEN DLX by voluntarily deposing that when plaintiff stopped supplying him the products bearing the trademark POWERMAN, he started using the trademark POWERMEN DLX, in September/October 2021. Though DW-1 in her affidavit of evidence has deposed that the mark POWERMEN DLX has been accepted by the Trademarks Authority and also relied upon the copy of trademark journal i.e. Ex.DW1/A to show that the said mark was accepted but in her cross examination when she was confronted with para 5 of her affidavit of evidence, DW-1 Ms. Kiran Sehgal admitted that POWERMEN DLX is not allowed as trademark and voluntarily deposed that POWERMEN DLX is not the trademark of defendant no.1. DW-2 has also confirmed that the objection of the plaintiff regarding acceptance of his trademark POWERMEN DLX was allowed by the Registrar of Trademarks. DW-3 Mr. Sahil Sehgal in his cross examination deposed that he does not make any kind CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 22 of 29 of goods by the name of POWERMEN MAXX and that he is selling the multi brand products of another as a freelancer.
34. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendants that the plaintiff has no exclusive rights in the trademark with the word POWERMAN as the Trademark Authority allowed the registration of similar trademark as appearing in Ex.DW1/D (colly) which shows that the said mark is common in trade. However, defendants have not led any evidence to show that the mark POWERMAN is being used by various persons regarding the similar products as of the plaintiff and merely if there are other registrations of the plaintiff's mark in the register of trademark, the same is common to register, but not common to trade.
35. Ld. Counsel for defendants argued that the plaintiff has admitted in her cross examination that the distributorship of defendants was not cancelled, therefore, no case of infringement is made out for permissible use of the marks. In this regard, suffice it to say that the distributorship of the defendants was with regard to the goods purchased from the plaintiff having its trademark "POWERMAN" and same came to an end when the plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 19.09.2021 Ex.PW1/19 to stop the misuse of their trademark, copyright and design.
36. It was argued that the proprietorship firm has no legal entity and as the plaintiff has filed the present suit against the proprietorship firm of the defendant, the same is liable to be dismissed.
CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 23 of 2937. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled as Dogiparthi Venkata Satish and Anr. Vs. Pilla Durga Prasad & Ors. 2025 INSC 1046 held as under and I quote:
"4.1 A proprietorship concern is nothing, but a trade name given by an individual for carrying on his business. A proprietorship concern is not a juristic person. It cannot sue, however, in view of Order XXX Rule 10 CPC, it can be sued....
4.2 The use of the word can in Order XXX Rule 10 CPC only indicates that proprietorship concern may be made a party. However, it does not necessarily mean that the proprietor itself if made a party would not be enough, inasmuch as, the proprietorship is to be defended by the proprietor only and not by anybody else. Once the proprietor has been impleaded as a party representing the proprietorship, no prejudice is caused to rather its interest is well protected and taken care of by the only and only person, who owns the proprietorship. Order XXX Rule 10 CPC does not in any manner debar a suit being filed against the proprietor."
38. Adverting back to the facts of case, in the present suit the plaintiff has impleaded M/s Balaji Trading Company i.e. the firm and its proprietor Mrs. Kiran Sehgal as defendant no.1 and similarly M/s Guru Mahima Electronics i.e. the firm and its proprietor Mr. Harish Kumar Sehgal as defendant no.2, therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for defendants that the suit is not maintainable.
CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 24 of 2939. The comparison of the words "POWERMAN" and "POWERMEN DLX & POWERMEN MAXX" has many prominent features which can create confusion and there is likelihood of deception on the level of pronunciation of these marks more especially in the context of India where majority of the consumers are illiterate and are likely to be deceived more as compared to the western world as far as the phonetically similarity is concerned. The marks "POWERMAN" and "POWERMEN DLX" & "POWERMEN MAXX" are so phonetically similar that the same can cause confusion to the common public. A consumer may not be able to differentiate the fine differences in these three marks. Further both the parties before me have common articles to trade and the defendants are dealing in the same products in which the plaintiff is dealing and they were admittedly the distributor of plaintiff since last 10 years till September, 2021, therefore, the confusion is bound to be more viz a viz in case of similar products. So in my considered opinion there is similarity between the marks which are subject matter of this case. Thus, it is held that defendants have failed to prove that there is no resemblance in the plaintiff's mark viz a viz defendants mark.
40. Further, the mark of the plaintiff though is a label mark but is duly registered with the Trademark Registry and the fact that plaintiff is prior user, is not in dispute. The defendants were admittedly distributor of the plaintiff and they were selling plaintiff's goods with the mark POWERMAN and later on just because the plaintiff CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 25 of 29 stopped supplying the material to the defendants, they deceptively copied the trademark of plaintiff by making cosmetic changes. Their marks POWERMEN DLX and POWERMEN MAXX are so similar to the trademark of the plaintiff, that the same are likely to cause confusion amongst the public in trade. Plaintiff has been able to prove a prima facie case in her favour. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiff being the owner of registered trademark POWERMAN and the plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury in case the defendants are not restrained from using the deceptively similar trademark as of the plaintiff. Thus, it is held that plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for. Accordingly, issue no.1 and 5 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no.6:-
6. Whether present suit is a counter-blast to the suit filed by the defendants against the plaintiff? If yes, to what effect? OPD
41. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants.
DW-2 in his affidavit of evidence deposed that the defendant was the distributor of the plaintiff and has given more than Rs.7-8 lacs as advance payment for goods and goods worth of Rs.15 lacs approximate are lying in broken condition. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendants that the defendants have filed a suit for recovery against the plaintiff, which is pending in another Commercial Court and in counter blast thereof the plaintiff has filed the CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 26 of 29 present suit. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of Trademark, Copyright, passing off, dilution, delivery up and damages etc. against the defendants. The cause of action to file the suit for recovery by the defendents can not be equated with the cause of action to file the present suit by the plaintiff and as such cannot be said to have been filed as a counter blast to the suit for recovery, as filed by defendants. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant.
Issue no.2 and 3:-
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree for delivery up? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages, if yes, at what amount? OPP
42. Both these issues are interconnected and have been taken up together. Onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. Plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of passing off the goods of defendants as of plaintiff. PW-1 in her affidavit of evidence deposed that immediately upon learning about the fact of infringement and passing off, the plaintiff got the product of defendants purchased from shop No.1, Mor Sarai Road, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 vide invoices Ex.PW1/28 (colly) and from the said invoices, the plaintiff came to know that the defendants were also representing themselves as a distributor and selling the fake product to the customers of plaintiff under the trademark CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 27 of 29 POWERMEN DLX. A perusal of invoice Ex.PW1/28 shows that defendant no.2 has declared on the invoice as (AUTH. DISTRIBUTOR OF POWERMAN). DW-2 in his cross examination has admitted that he does not mention the trademark POWERMEN DLX on the sale invoices, thus, the defendants were passing of their goods with the mark POWERMEN DLX as authorized distributor POWERMAN.
43. To a specific question, as put by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, DW-3 Sh. Sahil Sehgal deposed that he cannot tell the exact sale amount of POWERMAN, however, the same is estimated to around Rs.1.5 lac per month. In these admitted facts, punitive damages of Rs.5 lacs is awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Plaintiff is also entitled for delivery up all the goods having the mark POWERMEN DLX which are in possession of defendents.. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
Relief
44. In view of my findings on abovementioned issues, the suit of plaintiff is decreed qua relief of injunction and accordingly, defendants, their agents, partners, employees or any other acting on their behalf are hereby restrained from manufacturing, marketing, selling or dealing with the product POWERMEN DLX or POWERMEN MAXX or any other similar or deceptive trademark or trade dress as of plaintiff's trademark POWERMAN Further, a decree of punitive damages of Rs.5 lacs is also CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 28 of 29 awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Plaintiff is also entitled for delivery up all the goods having the mark POWERMEN DLX. Costs of suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR File be consigned to Record Room. KUMAR MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date:
2025.10.06 16:19:01 Announced in the open court +0530 on 06th October, 2025 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) District Judge (Commercial Court)-08 Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi CS (Comm) 5100/2021 Veena Aggarwal vs. M/s Balaji Trading Company & Anr. Page 29 of 29