Delhi District Court
The vs Abhay Enterprises on 18 January, 2022
In the Court of Shri Sanjiv Jain,
District Judge (Commercial Court)03, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi
CS (COMM) No. 68/2019
Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha
d/b/a CASIO COMPUTER CO. LTD.
6-2. HON-MACHI. I-CHOME.
SHIBUYA-KU.
TOKYO.
JAPAN
Through
Its Authorized Representative
Mr. Yoshiyuki Uchara,
Managing Director, Casio India Private Limited
A-41. Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road, New Delhi - 110044
.......... Plaintif
Versus
AFTAB ALAM
S/o Sh. Samsul Tauhid
Located at No. 411, Block-B6,
Prince Village Phase-l,
Tondiarpet, Chennat-600081,
Tamil Nadu
........DEFENDANT No. 1A
ALAM IMPEX
DEC OF THE IMPORTER- 04165096061
Old No. 89/45, New No. 89,
4th Floor.
Marine Tower.
Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai-600001,
Tamil Nadu
Also as & at-
ALAM IMPEX
CS (COMM) No. 68/2019
Page 1 of 24
Through PARTNER-AFTAB ALAM
Located at No. 411, Block-B6,
Prince Village Phase-I,
Tondiarpet, Chennai-600081,
Tamil Nadu
Also as & at-
ALAM IMPEX
Through PARTNER- V. ARUN BABU
FLAT No. 310. Block-B6.
Prince Village, Elayamudali Street,
Chennai-600081,
Tamil Nadu
.........DEFENDANT No. IB
KANISHKA ENTERPRISES
TIEC OF THE IMPORTER- 04130385721
42/87, Lingichetty Street
Mannady, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu
Also as & at-
KANISHKA ENTERPRISES
Through SMTUSHA RANI
No. 303, Prince Village, Phase-Il,
Block C-10. Elaya Street,
Chennai-600081
Tamil Nadu
KANISHKA ENTERPRISES
No. 14, Anderson Road,
Parrys, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu
.....DEFENDANT No. 1C
KANPUR TRADING COMPANY
LEC OF THE IMPORTER- 06120088781
327/1, Shastri Nagar.
Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh
Also as & at-
KANPUR TRADING COMPANY
Through Proprietor MOHAMMED AMAR
S/o Mohammed Tauhid
No. 327/I. Shastri Nagar,
Kapur-208005.
CS (COMM) No. 68/2019
Page 2 of 24
Uttar Pradesh
...... DEFENDANT No.1D
A. SATHISH
S/o Antony Anand Raj
No. 303, C-10,
Prince Village, Phase-Il
Ellayamudhali Street,
New Washmenpet,
Chennai-600081
Tamil Nadu
.......DEFENDANT No.1E
M/s SAI IMPEX
No. 89/45, 4' Floor,
Marine Tower,
Thambu Chetty Street,
Chennai-600001,
Tamil Nadu
... DEFENDANT No. IF
Office of the Principal Commissioner of Customs.
Custom House
60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu - 600001
...... DEFENDANT No. 2
Commissioner of Customs & Export Promotion
Central Board of Excise & Customs,
Department of Revenue,
Ministry of Finance, Government of India,
Room No. 252 B, North Block,
New Delhi - 110001
...DEFENDANT NO. 3
Date of institution :16.03.2019
Date of reserving judgment :18.01.2022
Date of decision :18.01.2022
CS (COMM) No. 68/2019
Page 3 of 24
JUDGMENT
18.01.2022
1. The plaintiff Casio Computer Company Limited, has filed this suit under Section 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, Section 55 of Copyright Act, 1957 against the defendants Aftab Alam & Ors for permanent injunction, restraining them from infringing its trademark and copyright, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts etc.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a Japanese Multinational Consumer Electronics and Commercial Electronics manufacturing company which develops, produces and sells system equipments and other products worldwide including calculators, electronic musical instruments, digital watches cameras etc. Its trademarks, labels/trades name are world famous as mentioned in para 3 of the plaint. In order to secure statutory rights in the said marks/labels, it applied/obtained various trademark registrations as detailed in para 5 of the plaint which it has been bonafidely and continuously using to the exclusion of others in the course of trade, goods and CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 4 of 24 business. It has built up a worldwide goodwill and reputation. It has been continuously promoting the trademarks/labels/trade name, goods and business through extensive advertisements, publicity, promotions spending enormous amount of money and expenditure. It maintains high standards of quality in relation to its products by investing heavily in R & D. It has also got domain names registered in its favour viz www.casio.com, www.casio-intl.com which have become distinctive and acquired secondary significance. The purchasing public, trade and industry worldwide identify and distinguish the plaintiff's goods under the said mark/label/trade name/domain name with the plaintiff and its trademarks/trade name are well known trademarks within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Act. It has thus exclusive rights to the use thereof and no one can be permitted to use the same or any other deceptively similar trademark/ tradename/ copyright/domain name in any manner whatsoever in relation to any specification of goods without the leave and license of the plaintiff.
3. It is alleged that defendant no.1 A to 1 F are the importers and/or their agents involved in the export of various consignments of counterfeit products in India including CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 5 of 24 counterfeit watches of various brands including that of CASIO in container no. TCNU7018218 vide bill of entry no. 9323907 dated 17.04.2017, container no. IAAU1683565 vide bill of entry no. 9670811 dated 12.05.2017 and container no. IAAU1684710 vide bill of entry no. 9988693 dated 06.06.2017 at Chennai Port. The said goods were intercepted and seized by the defendant no.2 since the consignments were found to be in violation of Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 framed under the Customs Act, 1962 vide notification no. 47/2007. The impugned goods were investigated by DRI, Chennai Zonal Unit which issued a Show Cause Notice dated 15.01.2018 to the counterfeitors/ violators including defendant no.1A to 1F. Its investigation revealed that actual importer of the consignments was none other than defendant no.1A and defendant no.1C and 1D had lent their import export Codes (IEC) to defendant no.1A for illicit monetary consideration. Defendant no.1E was the associate of defendant no.1A whose responsibility was to arrange IECs and get the goods cleared from the customs. DRI informed the plaintiff about the detention of the counterfeit goods as detailed in para 18 of the plaint. The Attorney of plaintiff joined the proceedings, inspected the seized goods and requested vide letters dated 28.10.2017, 31.08.2017, 28.08.2017 and CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 6 of 24 12.09.2017 not to release the goods to defendant no.1A to 1F. It also requested defendant no.2 to pass orders for absolute confiscation of goods imposing penalty on them including destruction of goods as per Rules, 2007. Plaintiff also executed the bonds for a sum of Rs. 3,60,20,659/- and furnished the bank guarantees for the value of the seized goods of the sum of Rs. 90,05,142/-. The consignments contained huge quantities of counterfeit watches approximately 40,000 fake casio watches as detailed in para 22 of the plaint. It is alleged that defendant no.1A to 1F had copied the artistic features involved in the plaintiff's trademark/label and infringed its copyright/trademark by using the false description on the impugned goods to wrongly link them with the plaintiff and to wrongly convey the people/customers that the impugned goods were coming from the source and origin of the plaintiff though they were not the proprietors of the impugned trademark nor had right to use them in any manner in relation to the impugned goods/business. It is stated that due to the impugned activities of defendants, the plaintiff has been suffering huge losses both in business and reputation for which, the defendants are liable to render their accounts and make good to the plaintiff the profits and business earned by them in terms of prayer made in para 34 of the plaint.
CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 7 of 244. This court after hearing the plaintiff at length passed an exparte adinterim order dated 06.04.2019 thereby restraining the defendants no.1A to 1F by itself/themselves as also through his/their individual proprietors/partners, agents,representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all other acting for and on their behalf from marketing, using, selling, trading, soliciting, importing, exporting, displaying, advertising, purveying,intending to sell/solicit or by any other mode or manner dealing in or using the products under the trademark/label CASIO® , CASIO and other formative trademarks/sub-brands include G-SHOCK, EDIFICE CASIO, EDIFICE,CASIO G-SHOCK,G-SHOCK and other formative trademarks/sub-brands and trademarks/labels/packaging and/or any other word/mark/label/packaging which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark (and its variants) either in the market or over the internet, and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to infringe, pass off, violation of plaintiff's proprietary rights, infringement of plaintiff's copyrights in artistic work of CASIO G-SHOCK, G-SHOCK,EDIFICE, EDIFICE CASIO AND CASIO®. Defendant no.2 and 3 were also restrained from releasing the seized goods to defendants no.1A to 1F till further CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 8 of 24 orders.
5. On getting summons of the suit and notice of the application, defendant no.1A, 1B and 1D filed their appearance through Sh. Sandeep Puri, ld. Counsel. Defendant no.2 and 3 also filed their appearance through Sh. Pramod Bahuguna, Ld. counsel. Defendant no.1C, 1E and 1F could not be served by ordinary mode of service. They were served through publication but despite publication, they did not appear and were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.02.2021.
6. On 05.02.2021, it was submitted on behalf of defendant no.1A, 1B and 1D that the defendants have nothing to do with the impugned goods nor they claim the same. Adjudication proceedings were also conducted by customs/DRI which concluded on 02.09.2020 vide summary of orders dated 76077/2020, vide which the adjudicating authority found the goods seized under Mazhar dated 15.12.2017 non compliant with the electronic and IT goods order dated 15.12.2012 prohibited in terms of Rule 3 liable for confiscation in terms of Section 111(d), 111(i), 111(l) of the Customs Act. The goods imported under bill entry no. 9323907 were also held liable for confiscation and penalties under Section 112 and 114 AA of the CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 9 of 24 Customs Act. Alam and Sathish who had used IEC of Kanishka Enterprises & Kanpur Trading Company and arranged retail IEC, prepared fabricated invoices, packaging list and other documents, were also held liable under Section 112 and 114AA.
7. Defendant no.1A, 1B and 1D also filed their written statements wherein they stated that they have neither imported any counterfeit goods nor made any attempt of selling nor have ever sold any infringed/counterfeit products of the plaintiff nor have any intention to infringe the copyrights of CASIO. They stated that they are not the manufacturers of any watches or accessories nor the dealers nor have advertized/sold any such products of the plaintiff. They are the petty shopkeepers at Chennai and are unnecessary involved in the false suit. They have no technical knowledge or experience of such trades. No cash memo, purchase memo, sale memo, label, sample or any printing material in the name or style of the plaintiff was recovered from them. They denied the averments made in the plaint and stated that the present suit is false and baseless. They also raised objections as to the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court alleging that the suit ought to be valued on the value of the seized goods as per the Suit CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 10 of 24 Valuation Act and no cause of action has accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
8. Defendant no.2 and 3 did not file any written statement but filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 alleging that defendant no.2 and 3 are the Custom Departments of the Government of India which deal with import and export of goods and collecting custom duty from the importers. Defendant no.2 has acted in accordance with IPR Rules, 2007. Since the trademark of the plaintiff was registered with Customs under IPR Rules, 2007, defendant no.2 proceeded in accordance with IP Rules in the present case. It is stated that DRI, Chennai Unit was investigating a case of fraudulent removal of high value goods from the containers imported by M/s Pooja Collection, Chennai. During the investigation, the above three consignments, of which defendant no.1A was the actual importer, were detained for violation of IPR Rules. Since the goods detained were the Casio watches of various brands/ trademarks which belonged to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was informed. The plaintiff then joined the proceedings and identified the detained goods as the counterfeit goods of its trademarks. The goods were therefore not released to the importers i.e. defendant no.1A, 1B and 1D on filing of their CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 11 of 24 respective bills of entries and defendants were proceeded in accordance with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 for the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. It is stated that the present suit is without any cause of action against the defendant no.2 and 3. The prayers made by plaintiff in para 34
(b) (c) (d) (h), i.e. (b) qua restraining the defendant no.2 and 3 from releasing the impugned goods, (c) for a direction to the defendant no.2 and 3 to absolute confiscate the impugned counterfeit goods being the plaintiff trademark/label under consignment under Bill of entries mentioned above and liberty to the plaintiff to destroy the said impugned goods in accordance with law, (d) for direction to defendants no.2 and 3 to return the bond and security amount/guarantee amount to the plaintiff, (h) to direct the defendant no.2 to expedite the adjudication and destruction proceedings are unsustainable as defendant no.2 has seized the counterfeit goods by following the procedure under Customs Act, 1962. Reference is made of Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 interalia that absolute confiscation of goods under the Customs Act is within the jurisdiction of the customs and no order from the Civil court is required. Defendant no.2 has already taken security amount/bank guarantees against the custom duty as per IPR Rules which the plaintiff has no right to claim.
CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 12 of 249. I have heard ld. Counsels Sh. Shravan Kumar Bansal for the plaintiff, Sh. Sandeep Puri for the defendant no.1A, 1B and 1D and Sh. Pramod Bahuguna, for defendant no.1 and 2, perused the order of the Adjudicating Authority, proceedings of the Custom Authorities and the documents.
10. In the instant case, the defendant no.1A, 1B and 1D through their counsels have given statements on 05.02.2021 and 05.10.2021 that defendants have nothing to do with the seized counterfeit goods nor they claim the same. They, in the written statement have also stated that they have neither imported any counterfeit products of the plaintiff nor made any attempt of selling any counterfeit products of plaintiff nor they are manufacturers of any watches or their accessories nor are the dealers nor have advertized/sold such products of the plaintiff. They are the petty shopkeepers at Chennai and do not have any technical knowledge of the products. No cash memo/purchase memo/sale memo/label/sample or any printing material in the name and style of plaintiff was recovered from their possession. They have also denied having misused the IEC of defendant no. 1C and 1D.
CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 13 of 2411. According to defendant no.2 and 3, three consignments of importers as detailed above belonging to defendant no.1C (Kanishka Enterprises), defendant no.1B (M/s Alam Impex) and defendant no.1D (M/s Kanpur Trading Company) were detained for violation of IPR Rules, 2007. Defendant no.1A ( Aftab Alam of M/s Alam Impex) was the actual importer of all the consignments. Show cause notices issued by the custom authorities reveal that defendant no.1A was operating and carrying the impugned importation in the name of defendant no.1B, 1C and 1D. Defendant no.1E was the associate of defendant no.1A and he had arranged fictitious IEC.
12. The adjudicating authority vide order dated 02.09.2020 has interalia ordered that counterfeit watches of Casio which are infringing the intellectual property rights of plaintiff should be absolutely confiscated and destroyed in accordance with the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 r/w IPR Rules, 2007. It was clarified in the order that the cost of destruction would be borne by the importers viz defendant no.1A, 1B, 1C and 1D. The defendants 1A, 1B and 1D have already given a statement that they do not claim the goods since not having any connection with the containers containing the counterfeit goods. It has CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 14 of 24 rather been stated on behalf of defendant no.1A, 1B and 1D that they are the petty shopkeepers and have nothing to do with the counterfeit goods.
13. A perusal of the documents filed by the plaintiff including the seizure memo issued by the custom authorities shows that the plaintiff had furnished the bonds in respect of 40174 watches contained in three containers for a total sum of Rs. 3,60,20,569/-. The plaintiff was also made to give bank guarantees to the customs to the tune of Rs. 90,05,142/- as a security for the seized counterfeit goods.
14. There is no doubt that the goods of the plaintiff and the counterfeit goods are deceptively similar. Although defendant no.1A, 1B and 1D have denied their involvement in the imports and shifted the blame on a third party but in the instant case, the third party is not before this court. Admittedly, the name of defendant no.1A appears as an importer with the Custom authorities which is evident from the show cause notice dated 15.01.2018 and the investigation conducted by the defendant no.2 and 3. The consignments in respect of which the show cause notices have been issued have the counterfeit Casio Watches.
CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 15 of 2415. In the instant case, violations of the right of plaintiff is writ large on a perusal of products of the plaintiff and the counterfeit products. Such import of counterfeit products cannot be a countenanced in any manner. If such imports are permitted, they would cause huge losses to the trademark owners specially since markets would be flooded with such passed off products. Apart from the fact that this has resulted in serious violation of rights, there is an issue in respect of quality of such products. The imported products do not go through the same quality control measures. Such imports are also likely to result in severe damages and losses to the owners of the intellectual property as also the customers.
16. On a perusal of Order no. 76077/2020 dated 02.09.2020, I find that DRI-CZU had found incriminating documents from the premises of Alam Impex. Various other documents were also found in the mobile accessories shop named M/s Alam Mobiles whose owner is the partner of M/s Alam Impex. Violated imported goods were found and seized. The Order finds mention that M/s Alam Impex had filed a writ petition against the Assistant Commissioner of Customs/Additional Director etc in the Hon'ble High Court at Madras for releasing of goods CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 16 of 24 covered by bill of entry no. 9670811 dated 12.05.2017 under 110 A of the Customs Act. Sh. G. Sankaralingam had also filed similar petition on behalf of Kanishka Enterprises. All the consignments of Kanpur Trading Company under Mazhar proceedings were also found to contain the violate goods. On examination, the products were not found genuine and were imported in violation of IPR regulations. Vide above order, the goods in respect of bills of entries no. 9323907 dated 17.04.2017 (M/s Kanishka Enterprises), 9670811 dated 12.05.2017 (M/s Alam Impex) and 9988693 dated 06.06.2017 (M/s Kanpur Trading Company) were held liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111 (1) and 111 (d) of the Customs Act r/w IPR Rules, 2007. The absolute destruction of the goods were also ordered at the cost of the importers. The penalities were also imposed on Kanishka Enterprises, Aftab Alam, A. Sathish.
17. In the case of Vini Cosmetics Pvt Ltd v/s Abhay Enterprises and Ors, CS (Comm)-1417/2016, decided on 01.10.2018, it was held that to protect against such misuse and harm, the Intellectual property rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules, 2007 have been introduced. The custom authorities have been given right in calling upon the owner as per the Rules and CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 17 of 24 detaining the infringing products.
18. In the instant case, no triable defence exists in favour of defendant no.1A to 1F. As per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and Order 13A of CPC, it is not necessary that evidence should be recorded in every suit. In the present suit, right from the beginning, defendant no.1A, 1B and 1D have stated that they are not concerned with the impugned/counterfeit products nor they claim the same. For the said reasons, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for in para 34 (a) of the plaint.
19. As regards, the territorial jurisdiction of the court, the plaintiff has been using the domain names www.casio.com, www.casio- intl.com and have website from where it has been marketing its products which is in the jurisdiction of this court and is sufficient to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Reliance is placed on the cases, Marico Limited v/s Mukesh Kumar and ors, CS (Comm) No. 1569 of 2008 of the Delhi High Court, Burger King Corporation v/s Technical Shewakramani & ors, 2018 (76) PTC 90 Del and Millenium and Copthorne International Ltd v/s Aryans Plaza Services Pvt ltd, CS (Comm) No. 774 of 2016 of the Delhi High Court.
CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 18 of 2420. Admittedly, the address of defendants is at Chennai but there are averments in the plaint that apart from the sales to the distributors, defendant no.1A to 1F are intending to sell and soliciting the counterfeit goods bearing the plaintiff's said trademark/labels directing to the customers from their shops/warehouses to the dealers/retailers/distributors in the markets of New Delhi within the jurisdiction of this court. The plaintiff has also been carrying on its business under the said trademark/label at New Delhi through its owned subsidiary namely Casio India Company having its registered office at New Delhi and through its distributor/dealer network. So, by virtueof Section 20 of the CPC and Section 134 (2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
21. As regards, pecuniary jurisdiction of the court, in the instant case, the plaintiff has prayed for relief of permanent injunction and valued the suit for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs. 200/- each and paid the court fees accordingly. Besides, it has prayed for rendition of accounts and profits illegally earned by the defendants in paragraph 35
(e) valuing the suit for purpose of jurisdiction at Rs. 3,02,500/-
CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 19 of 24and paid the court fees of Rs. 5,522/-. It has undertaken to pay additional court fees upon rendition of accounts of the defendants. It being the position, this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this suit.
22. For the aforesaid reasons, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for permanent injunction against defendants no.1A to 1F.
23. Defendant nos. lA to IF by itself/themselves as also through his/their individual proprietors/partners, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on its behalf are therefore restrained from using, selling, soliciting, importing (in any manner or from any other port), exporting, displaying, advertising or by any other mode or in any manner using the Plaintiff's said trademarks CASIO and under formative trademarks/sub-brands include and other formative trademarks/sub-brands and trademarks/labels/ packaging and/or any other word/mark/label/packaging which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark/label , CASIO and other CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 20 of 24 formative trademarks/sub-brands include and other formative trademarks/sub-brands in trading of watches, clocks, horological instruments, accessories used therefore and other allied/related products and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to:-
i) Infringement of plaintiff's registered trademarks/labels , CASIO and other formative trademarks/sub-brands include and other formative trademarks/sub-brands.
ii) Passing off and violation of the plaintiffs rights in the plaintiff's said trademarks/labels ,CASIO and other formative trademarks/sub-brands include and other formative trademarks/sub-brands.
iii) Violation of plaintiff's proprietary rights in its trade name. CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 21 of 24
iv) Infringing the Copyright in the artwork of the plaintiff's said trademarks/labels/packagings- , CASIO and other formative trademarks/sub-brands include and other formative trademarks/sub-brands as prayed for.
24. Now coming to damages, although the plaintiff has not produced any evidence qua the damages sustained by it because of the alleged imports of the impugned goods by the defendants no.1A to 1F but in the case of Hero Honda Motors Ltd v/s Shree Assuramji Scooters, 2006 (86) DRJ 113, it was observed that the time has come when the courts dealing actions for infringement of trademarks,copyrights etc should not only grant compensatory damages but award punitive damages also 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 CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 22 of 24 disaster for them. It was held that in such cases, damages must be awarded and the defendant who chooses to stay away from the proceedings of the court, should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of evasion of court proceedings.
25. Since the defendants have not disclosed the accounts or sales figures, keeping in mind the value of the consignments, damages to the extent of Rs. 5.0 lakhs are imposed against the defendants. The damages are payable jointly and severally. The plaintiff is directed to pay the difference of the court fees accordingly. These damages are in addition to the penalities imposed by the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 02.09.2020.
26. Now coming to releasing of bank guarantees, in the instant case, the counterfeit goods were seized from the containers. These counterfeit goods were deceptively similar to the goods being manufactured and marketed by the plaintiff. The authorized representative of the plaintiff has participated in the proceedings conducted by the Customs and DRI and furnished the bonds and the bank guarantees. The adjudicating authority has already ordered for confiscation of the counterfeit goods and destruction thereof. That being the position, plaintiff is CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 23 of 24 entitled for releasing of the bank guarantees furnished by it in respect of the above consignments.
27. The defendant no.2 and 3 are accordingly directed to release the bank guarantees furnished by the plaintiff in respect of the above consignments. Since the adjudicating authority has already ordered for confiscation and destruction of counterfeit goods seized by the defendant no.2 and 3, no order is passed qua handing over the counterfeit goods to the plaintiff seized under the consignments for the purpose of destruction and erasure. The cost for destruction of the counterfeit goods be paid by the plaintiff to the custom authorities which may be recovered from the defendants no.1A to 1F jointly and severally.
28. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. No orders as to cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced through video conferencing today i.e. 18.01.2022 (Sanjiv Jain) District Judge (Commercial Court)03 New Delhi/ 18th January, 2022 CS (COMM) No. 68/2019 Page 24 of 24