Bangalore District Court
Sanspareils Greenlands Pvt Ltd vs M/S Ksi Sports on 17 April, 2025
KABC170002012024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-85) (Commercial Court)
THIS THE 17th DAY OF APRIL 2025
PRESENT:
SRI. ARJUN. S. MALLUR. B.A.L.LL.B.,
C/c LXXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com.O.S.No.110/2024
SANSPAREILS GREENLANDS PVT. LTD.,
Plot No.-1250, Gangol Road,
Partapur, Meerut-250103,
U.P., India.
ALSO AT:
28/32, Victoria Park,
Meerut, UP-250001.
Represented By Its Authorised Signatory,
MR. PUNEET ANAND
...PLAINTIFF
(By Sri.RAVI RAGHAVAN,Advocate.)
AND
M/S KSI SPORTS,
Νο.17/18, 9th Main,
N.G.Palya, BTM layout,
1st stage,Bengaluru,
Karnataka, 560029.
Represented By Its Proprietor,
MR. MOHAMMAD YASIN MIR
...DEFENDANT
(By Sri.Srinivas Murthy D S , Advocate.)
2
Com.O.S.No.110/2024
Date of Institution 18.01.2024
The mandatory and
Nature of suit
permanent injunctive reliefs
Date of commencement of 19.12.2024
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment
17.04.2025
pronounced
Time taken for disposal Years Months Days
Total duration 01 02 30
(ARJUN. S. MALLUR)
C/c. LXXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-85) Commercial Court, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
Suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant and any persons claiming or acting under the defendant from infringing and passing of the plaintiffs statutory rights and from using the plaintiffs copyrighted artistic works under the name 'SG' trademark/trade name by itself or in combination with words or figures identical or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs artistic work in the letters 'SG', for mandatory injunction directing the defendant and persons claiming under the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff for destruction all finished or unfinished products, packaging material, letterheads, accessories, 3 Com.O.S.No.110/2024 defendant, their proprietors, directors, partners, principal officers, employees, workers, agents, assigns, representatives, co- marketers and servants or any other person claiming through/by or under it for a decree of mandatory injunction against the defendant and persons claiming through or under the defendant to recall all goods sold from using the trademark/trade name 'SG' as word/device mark/logo or any other mark by itself or in combination with any other word(s) or combination of words, which is identical or deceptively/confusingly similar to the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'SG' and other 'SG' well-known trademarks, variations thereof, so as to result in infringement and passing off of the plaintiff's statutory rights and common law respectively and from using the plaintiff's copyrighted artistic works in 'SG' trademark/trade name or any other work which by itself or in combination with words or figures etc., is identical or deceptively/confusingly similar to the Plaintiffs artistic works in the letters 'SG' and for a direction against the defendant to render accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendant on account of illegal use of plaintiffs copyrighted artistic work in the trademark/trade name 'SG' as well as plaintiffs trademark/trade name 'SG' or any other mark by itself or in combination with any other words or combination of words which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark 'SG' and other 'SG' well known trademarks.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:-
4Com.O.S.No.110/2024 The plaintiff is a company engaged in manufacturing and trading of cricket gear, in India as well as around the world under the name 'SG' an abbreviation of the plaintiffs company. The plaintiff has been in the said business since 1970 indulging in manufacturing and selling of cricket equipment and gears.
The plaintiff is one of the oldest and most trusted cricket equipment and gear manufacturer in India with world class technology and the products and equipment of the plaintiff are sold all over the country including Karnataka and also at Bengaluru. The plaintiff has common law right over its 'SG' trademark and with a view to protect its intellectual property in the mark 'SG' the plaintiff applied for registration of the said trademark and related derivative trademarks under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The plaintiff has obtained several registrations for the Indian Trademark Registry in various clauses for 'SG' marks including 'SG' word marks, 'SG' device mark and 'SG' derivative marks which are valid and in force. It is submitted that the products of the plaintiff with the trademark and brand name 'SG' are sold in domestic and international market and are also available for sale on the official website of the plaintiff under the domain name www.teamsg.in on various e-commerce platforms. As per Section 28(1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 the plaintiff not only has an exclusive right to use their trademark but also have a right to obtain reliefs with respect to infringements of the said trademark.5
Com.O.S.No.110/2024
3. It is submitted that during the first week of March 2023 the plaintiff became aware about infringement of its 'SG' trademark/copyright and upon investigation through a private agency it was revealed that the plaintiffs trademark being infringed and a police complaint came to be filed before V.V.Puram Police Station, Bengaluru, against the present defendant for having infringed the plaintiffs 'SG' trademark by using deceptively similar trademark under various names. It is submitted that the defendant has been promoting various counterfeit cricket gears and equipment on its social media web pages bearing 'SG' copyrighted a trademark which is deceptively similar to that of the registered trademark of the plaintiff. The defendant has been actively involved in facilitating the trade of counterfeit cricketing gears through its social media platforms and has illegally used the 'SG' copyrighted trademark and works of the plaintiff without any authorization from the plaintiff giving rise to confusion in the minds of the public as to the actual source of the goods being provided to them. It is submitted that the defendant making use of the copyrighted trademark is making the public to believe and assume that the defendant is a branch of the plaintiff whereas the defendant is no way concerned to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the adoption and use of the 'SG' copyrighted trademark and work by the defendant is without any leave or permission by the plaintiff. It is further submitted the unauthorized use of the 'SG' trademark by the defendant by infringing the plaintiffs registered copyright and mark and passing of the same has resulted in damage to the trust, goodwill 6 Com.O.S.No.110/2024 and reputation gained by the plaintiff ever since 1970 and also has resulted in enormous business losses. The use of identical 'SG' marks by the defendant is a deliberate attempt to pass of the plaintiff goods as their own goods and cause enormous financial loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the defendant engaging in sale of counterfeit cricketing goods by unauthorized using the trademark 'SG' on its products has resulted in confusion in the public as to the authenticated brand product and also has harmed the reputation and goodwill of earned by the plaintiff and hence the present suit seeking the mandatory and permanent injunctive reliefs as prayed.
4. On service of summons the defendant has appeared through counsel but has not filed any written statement in spite of providing sufficient opportunities.
5. The plaintiff has examined its authorized representative as PW.1 and has got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.7.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.
7. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:
POINT NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunctions as prayed?
POINT NO.2: What order or decree?
7
Com.O.S.No.110/2024
8. My answers to the above points are as under:
Point No.1:- In the Affirmative, Point No.2:- As per the final Order for the following;
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:- The plaintiff has examined its authorized representative who filed his affidavit by way of evidence reiterating the averments made in the plaint. He has got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.7. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the trademark registration certificates issued from time to time by the Registry of Trademarks, Government of India, which shows that the plaintiff has been conferred with the registered wordmark and trademark 'SG', which is in force even to this day.
Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the registration certificate with respect to the plaintiff company. Ex.P.3 is the board resolution authorizing PW.1 to depose before the court. Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of the FIR in Vishweshwaram Puram Police Station - 28/2023 with respect to infringement of the copyrights. Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of the report by the investigating agency with respect to the defendant indulging in unauthorized use of the plaintiffs registered trademark. Ex.P.6 is the printouts of Instagram pictures regarding defendant advertising its products by counterfeiting the goods carrying the infringed 'SG' trademark belonging to the plaintiff. Ex.P.7 is the certificate under Section 8 Com.O.S.No.110/2024 65B of the then Indian Evidence Act with respect to the Instagram screenshot images produced at Ex.P.6.
10. As already mentioned above the defendant though appeared through counsel has not contested the proceedings. In spite of providing sufficient opportunity defendant has not filed the written statement. The defendant has also not cross- examined PW.1. Therefore there is absolutely no contra evidence or material to disbelieve the evidence of the plaintiff before the court.
11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has also filed the written synopsis of the arguments and in support of the arguments has relied upon the following decisions:
1. 2006 SCC Online Del 318: Asian paints(India) Ltd., V/s.
Balaji Paints and Chemicals & Ors.
2. (2012) 2 SCC 196: Whatman International Limited V/s. P.Mehta & Ors.
3. Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CS(COMM) 351/2016, dated 01.02.2019.
4. Judgment reported in (1964 (1) All E.R. 367: Rookes V/s. Barnard.
12. I have gone through the above cited decisions and the observations made therein as regards the repeated use of the registered trademark belonging to a company unauthorized and illegally would amount to infringement and passing of attracting the punitive action of permanent and mandatory injunction under 9 Com.O.S.No.110/2024 the civil rights. The observations made in the above decisions apply to the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
13. Based on the investigative report at Ex.P.5 the plaintiff lodged a complaint under Ex.P.4 for infringement of its copyrights but in spite of it the defendant has continued to make use of the counterfeit products by unauthorized using the registered trademark of the plaintiff and thereby infringed and passed of the registered trademark belonging to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff would be entitled for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunctions as prayed. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. POINT NO.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
By order of permanent injunction the defendant, its proprietors, directors, partners, principal officers, employees, workers, agents, assigns, representatives, co-marketers and servants or any other person claiming through/by or under it are restrained from using the trademark/trade name 'SG' as word/device mark/logo or any other mark by itself or in combination with any other word(s) or combination of words, which is identical or deceptively/confusingly similar to the 10 Com.O.S.No.110/2024 plaintiff's registered trade mark 'SG' and other 'SG' well-known trademarks, variations thereof, so as to result in infringement and passing off of the plaintiff's statutory rights and common law respectively and from using the plaintiff's copyrighted artistic works in 'SG' trademark/tradename or any other work which by itself or in combination with words or figures etc., is identical or deceptively/confusingly similar to the Plaintiffs artistic works in the letters 'SG' By order of mandatory injunction the defendant, their proprietors, directors, partners, principal officers, employees, workers, agents, assigns, representatives, co-marketers and servants or any other person claiming through/by or under them are directed to deliver to the plaintiff or its nominated representative for destruction all/any finished and/or unfinished products, packaging material, letterheads, accessories, labels, signs, stickers, prints, boxes, blocks, dyes or any other advertising/packaging material bearing, Plaintiff's copyrighted artistic works in the trademark/trade name 'SG as well as the trademark/ trade name 'SG' in the form of word mark/device mark/logo or any other mark by itself or in combination with any other word(s) or combination of words, which is identical or deceptively/confusingly similar to the plaintiffs registered trade mark 'SG' and 11 Com.O.S.No.110/2024 other 'SG' well-known trademarks, variations thereof.
By order of mandatory injunction the Defendant, their proprietors, directors, partners, principal officers, employees, workers, agents, assigns, representatives, co-marketers and servants or any other person claiming through/by or under them are directed to recall all goods sold and all finished and/or unfinished products, letterheads, packaging material, labels, signs, stickers, prints, boxes or any other advertising/ packaging material bearing the Plaintiff's copyrighted artistic works in the trademarks/trade name 'SG' as well as trademark/ trade name 'SG' or any other mark by itself or in combination with any other word(s) or combination of words, which are identical or deceptively/confusingly similar to the Plaintiff's registered trade mark 'SG' and other 'SG' well-known trademarks, variations thereof.
The defendant shall also render accounts of profits illegally earned on account of illegal use of copyrighted artistic works in the trademarks/trade name 'SG' as well as plaintiffs trademark/ trade name 'SG' or any other mark by itself or in combination with any other word or words which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trademark 'SG' and other 'SG' 12 Com.O.S.No.110/2024 well-known trademarks variations thereof.
Draw decree accordingly.
Send soft copies of judgment on mail to both the parties if e-mail Id's are furnished.
[Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and signed by me then pronounced in the Open Court, dated this the 17th day of April 2025] (ARJUN. S. MALLUR) C/c. LXXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-85) Commercial Court, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW.1 Puneet Anand List of documents marked for the plaintiff:
C/c of trademark registration certificate of the Ex.P1 plaintiff company C/c of copyright registration certificate of the Ex.P2 plaintiff company Ex.P3 C/c of the Board Resolution C/c of FIR No.28/2023 of V.V.Puram PS dated Ex.P4 07.03.2023 Ex.P5 C/c of Raid report dated 07.03.2023 Ex.P6 76 instances showcasing defendant's advertising activities relating to counterfeit goods embossed 13 Com.O.S.No.110/2024 with SG mark of the plaintiff company (page Nos.922 to 1058) Ex.P7 Certificate U/sec.65B of the evidence Act List of witnesses examined for the defendant:
NIL List of documents marked for the defendant:
NIL (ARJUN. S. MALLUR) C/c. LXXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-85) Commercial Court, Bengaluru.