Delhi District Court
Krbl Limited vs Ashok Kumar on 24 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE
(COMMERCIAL COURT-02)
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
CS (COMM) 230/2020
KRBL Limited ..........Plaintiff
5190, Lahori Gate,
Delhi -110006
also at
Corporate office at
C-32, 5th & 6th Floor,
Sector-62, Noida-201301 (UP)
Versus
Ashok Kumar ........Defendant no. 1
Bandra Kurla Complex
Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra
also at
India Gate Rice Ltd
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Mumbai-400051, Maharashtra
Vijay Patel ........Defendant no. 2
Gram Ajnod, Sanwer,
Indore - 453551,
Madhya Pradesh
Arup Talukdar ........Defendant no. 3
PO Pathsala
Distt: Barpeta, Assam
India, Pin code 781325
Bacchan Mandal ........Defendant no. 4
Village Ambadiha Fatak,
KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 1
Post Sakrigali, Sahibganj
Jharkhand. Pin code 816109
Date of institution : 31.08.2020
Date of submissions : 24.11.2022
Date of Judgment : 24.11.2022
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants and its agents from infringing the Trademark "INDIA GATE with device of INDIA GATE". Case of the plaintiff in brief, is that plaintiff is a duly incorporated Indian company since 1993 and is engaged in the business of processing, marketing and exporting of rice of various kinds including Basmati Rice. It is stated that plaintiff is the world's larges rice miller and also a leading basmati rice exporter, a global player and marketer with respect to rice (including basmati) under the trademark INDIA GATE with device of INDIA GATE. It is stated that plaintiff's products are popular for their superior quality and reliability and are in grate demand in domestic and overseas markets and the brand popularity is ever increasing. It is stated that since 1993, plaintiff acquired right in the trademark INDIA GATE under No. 599833 in Class 30 vide deed of assignment dated 06.08.2019.
2. It is pleaded that plaintiff attained tremendous sales figures over the years and spent enormous amounts of money on advertisement and promotions. It is stated that in view of extensive use and high reputation of the trademark INDIA GATE, the plaintiff's trade INDIA GATE has been recorded as Well Known trademark. It is submitted that the artistic works involved in the plaintiff's trademark/label INDIA GATE (with device of India Gate) are the original artistic works within the meaning of Indian Copyright Act 1957 and the plaintiff is the KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 2 owner and proprietor thereof and that copyright in the said trademark/label is duly registered under No. A-75495/2006 under the Copyright Act in the name of the plaintiff. It is submitted that plaintiff owns and is the proprietor of the website www.krblrice.com
3. It is averred that defendant no. 1 is selling, exporting, soliciting advertising and networking the said goods of the plaintiff through the medium of its impugned website/domain name www.indiagatericeltd.com and email [email protected] and is fraudulently using the plaintiff's trademark/label. It is stated that the Registrar and web hosting service provider for the impugned domain name is WIX.com Ltd., and defendant no. 1 is committing the impugned acts of infringement and passing off within the jurisdiction of this Court by such selling , soliciting, trade, distribution and networking in relation to rice and related/cognate/allied goods through the impugned website/domain name.
4. Case of the plaintiff further is that defendant no. 2,3 & 4 are holders of bank accounts wherein defendant no. 1is receiving money or asking for deposit of money from the customers of the plaintiff. The details of the bank accounts are mentioned below:
Account No. Account Holder 20239799046 Defendant No. 2 333373845086 Defendant No. 3 31471028009 Defendant No. 4
5. It is stated that plaintiff received various emails on its customer care e-mail id whereby it was revealed that defendant no. 1 is not only unauthorizedly displaying the plaintiff's products on its website, he is also collecting money KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 3 against prospective sale of those products and that in the said emails, the purchasers have complained of depositing money at the instance of defendant no. 1 through bank accounts of defendant no. 2, 3 & 4 and no product was received by them against such money. It is stated that defendant nos. 7, 8 & 9 are the respective branches of State Bank of India, wherein the defendant no. 2, 3 & 4 hold their bank accounts. It is averred that plaintiff also lodged a complaint dated August 5, 2020 with Deputy Commissioner of Police, Delhi with a request to lodge a FIR against the erring parties which would take its own legal recourse.
6. Case of the plaintiff is that in order to protect its consumers and also to prevent such unauthorized deposit of money to defendant No. 1, plaintiff sent E-mails to Branch Managers of SBI requesting them to freeze the Bank Accounts of the defendant no. 2 & 3. It is stated that another Complaint dated August 14, 2020 was filed before the Deputy Commissioner of Police, New Delhi informing the details of bank account of the defendant and requesting for freezing of bank accounts of the defendant.
7. It is submitted that as mentioned in the above table, the respective Domain Name Registrar and Web Hosting Service Provider are providing support services to defendant No. 1's impugned domain name and that without the support provided by such respective Registrar and Host Provider the impugned domain name will not function. It is submitted that plaintiff learnt about defendant No. 1's impugned Trademarks/label/name infringing activities in the first week of August, 2020 when the plaintiff came across the impugned website/domain name of KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 4 defendant No. 1 on the Indian Internet landscape. It is submitted that this court has the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present suit and there is irreparable loss and injury due to the acts and conduct of the defendants. It is stated that defendant no. 1 is indulging in online sale of impugned product in South Delhi. It is stated that carrying on business by the defendant as well as whole or part of caution for filing the suit has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court within the meaning of Section 20 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Hence, present suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants and its agents from infringing the Trademark has been filed.
8. On 04.09.2020 , names of defendant no. 5 to 9 were ordered to be deleted from the arrays of parties and an exparte interim was granted in favour of plaintiff. Defendants never appeared before this Court despite service. On 26.10.2020, affidavit regarding compliance u/O XXXIX Rule 3 CPC was filed. On 17.08.2021, again an application u/O XXXIX rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC was filed and on 24.08.2021, ad interim exparte interim was granted in favour of plaintiff.
9. Since, there was no appearance on behalf of defendants despite service and publication in the newspaper 'Times of India' Indore dated 15.09.2022, they were proceeded exparte on 20.09.2022.
10. On 04.11.2022, an application u/O 1 rules 3 & 10 (2) CPC was filed for adding GoDaddy.com LLC; Endurance Digital Domain Technology LLP; Hosting Concepts B. V. d/b/a Openprovider; UnifiedLayers.net and PDR (Public Domain Name Registry) as defendant no. 5 to 9.
KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 511. This court has heard submissions advanced by Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Banal with Sh. Saurabh Arora, Learned counsels for the plaintiff and perused the material on record.
12. Ld. counsel for plaintiff submitted that the Defendant No.1 had been engaging in the trade and business of manufacturing, processing, sale, exporting, soliciting, advertising, networking of rice and related/cognate/allied goods (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned goods and business") through the medium of impugned domain name www.indiagatericeltd.com and impugned email [email protected] which are deceptively similar/identical to the plaintiff's said trademark, in its basic idea and its essential features. It is submitted that the defendant No.1 is not the proprietor of the impugned domain and email and has adopted and used in relation to its impugned goods and business and are otherwise dealing with it in the course of trade without the leave and license of the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendants were fully aware of the Plaintiff's rights, goodwill, reputations, benefits and user etc. in the Plaintiff's said trademark/label at the time of their impugned adoption and use of the impugned domain and email.
13. It is further submitted that the dishonest and fraudulent adoption by the defendants, committed out of positive greed to take undue advantage of the established goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff, is bound to cause deception and confusion in the market and trade channel. It is submitted that the Plaintiff's said trademark/label is otherwise being diluted and eclipsed thereby and any person not knowing clearly the relationship between the parties of this action is bound to be KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 6 confused by the defendant no.1's impugned adoption and use and might well do business with the defendant No.1's, thinking that it is dealing with the Plaintiff or that some strong, vital and subtle links exist between the Plaintiff and the defendant No.1.
14. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further submitted that in the second week of August, 2020, the Plaintiff came to know about the dishonest adoption of the impugned domain name by the defendant No.1 and being aggrieved, the Plaintiff conducted inquiry and came across Defendant No.1's recently started impugned domain name. It is submitted that the Defendant No.1 has been trading, selling, exporting, soliciting, advertising, networking the impugned goods and business of the Plaintiff under the impugned domain name and the said website is interactive in nature and the Defendant takes orders through these websites and channels, along with exporting the impugned goods under the impugned mark/label. It is submitted that trade channels and websites are accessible within the jurisdiction of this Court.
15. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further submitted that this Court had granted an ex-parte interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff on 04.09.2020 and the Defendant No.1 to 4 were restrained from operating through the medium of impugned trademark/label/domain name/email or any other mode and the impugned email or any other word/mark/domain name/e-mail or website/email surfacing with different name, domain name etc or any other word/mark which may be deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademark, pursuant to order of this Court, Plaintiff had come across four new infringing domain name/websites i.e., www.indiagatericeltd.in, www.indiagaterice.co.in, KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 7 www.indiagatericeltd.co.in and www.indiagatefoods.in which consisted of Plaintiff's registered and well-known trademark INDIA GATE and have identical/similar look, feel and contents as the earlier impugned domain name www.indiagatericeltd.com and therefore, moved an application u/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC , 1908 on 12.08.2021 and this Court vide its order dated 24.08.2021 restrained the Defendants from dealing with the abovesaid impugned websites.
16. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has again came across four new websites i.e. (i) http://www.indiagate- foods.co.in/., (ii) https://www.indiagate-rice.co.in/, (iii) https://www.indiagaterice.org.in/ and https://indiagatefood.in/ which have surfaced on the internet and are interactive in nature and the said websites consist of the Plaintiff's registered and well-known trademark INDIA GATE. It is submitted that the Defendant No.1 has slightly changed the extensions of the domain name to the Plaintiff's well-known and registered trademark INDIA GATE to create the present impugned domain names. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has prayed that apart from injunction for compensatory and punitive damages be granted in favour of the Plaintiff.
17. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Midas Hygiene Industries Pvt Ltd vs Sudhir Bhatia And Ors 2004 (28) PTC 121 SC and on the judgments of Delhi High Court in the matters of Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd Vs. Crichd & Ors. CS COMM 470/2022; KEI Industries Ltd. Vs. Raman Kwatra and Anr. 2022 SCC Online Del 1459; Century Traders Vs. Roshan Lal Duggar & Co. & Ors. F.A. (O.S.) 46 of KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 8 1976; Heels Vs. V.K. Abrol & Anr. 2006 SCC Online Del 186 AND Jockey International Inc & Anr. Vs. R Chandra Mohan & Ors. 2014 (59) PTC 437 [Del].
18. To prove its case, plaintiff examined Sh. Himalaya Koul s/o Sh. Virendra Koul as PW-1, who tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon photographs of the product under the Trademark/label/trade-dress/packaging of the plaintiff Ex. PW1/A-1 to A-8; Certificate of incorporation Ex. PW1/3A; Certificate for Commencement of business Ex. PW1/3B; Fresh Certificate of incorporation consequent upon change of name Ex.PW1/3C; and agreement dated 01.04.1996 Ex.PW1/3-D; computer print out of status of registration no. 599833 dated 21.02.2020 Ex.PW/4A; Certificate of Registration certificate of TM application no. 599833 Ex.PW1/4B; Renewal Certificate of TM application no. 599833 Ex.PW1/4C showing renewal from 18.06.2003 to ten years; Second renewal certificate of TM application no. 599833 Ex.PW1/4D showing renewal from 18.06.2013 to ten years; Form TM - M for amendment dated 07.08.2019 Ex.PW1/4E; Deed of Assignment dated 06.08.2019 alongwith consent letter Ex.PW1/4F; Form TM - M for authorization of agent dated 06.08.2019 Ex.PW1/4G; Journal Ex.PW1/4H; receipt dated 25.11.2019 of certified copy u/s 137 of Trademark Ex.PW1/4-I; Extract of Board Resolution dated 08.11.2021 by Sh. Anil Kumar Mittal, Chairman & Managing Director issued by plaintiff company in my favour Ex. PW1/1; computer print outs of status page dated 27.08.2020 of registration no. 1359845 for trademark BABAL HIND Ex.PW1/5A; Registration certificate dated 31.01.2007 TM application no. 1359845 Ex.PW1/5B (OSR); page no. 8314 of KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 9 TM Journal no. 1339 suppl. (1) dated 15.02.2006 Ex. PW1/5C; receipt dated 26.11.2019 of certified copy u/s 137 of Trademark Ex.PW1/5-D; Computer printout of list of other trademarks of the plaintiff Ex. PW1/6; copyright registration certificate under no. A-75495/2006 dated 28.01.2006 Ex.PW1/7; Certificates from CA for sales figures and advertisement figures of the plaintiff of trademark INDIA GATE Ex. PW1/8A to F; Invoices with respect to Domestic Sales of the plaintiff since 1999 till 2020 Ex.PW1/9; Invoices with respect to Export sales of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/10 (colly) during the period between 1999 till 2020; Invoices related to the advertisements of the plaintiff's brand through various medias since 2005 till 2016 Ex.PW1/11; newspaper advertisements, magazine advertisements, trade magazine advertisements since 2005 Ex.PW1/12; coloured magazine advertisements related to the plaintiff's brand Ex. PW1/13; coloured Trade Magazine showing plaintiff's brand Ex. PW14; coloured images of stores, hoardings with respect to advertisements related to plaintiff's brand Ex. PW1/15; Brochures , print , advertisement, leaflets and TV advertisements- God of Grains with respect to Plaintiff's brand Ex. PW1/16; coloured print outs of the awards, certificates, images, news articles related to Guinness world record in the name of plaintiff Ex.PW1/17; coloured printouts of events organized/sponsored by the plaintiff Ex. PW1/18; computer print outs showing availability of plaintiff's goods under its brand INDIA GATE at its own website Ex.PW1/19; computer printouts of order of Deputy Registrar of trademarks & GI dated 31.07.2019 declaring plaintiff's trademark INDIA GATE as a well known mark Ex. PW1/20A alongwith page no. 8330 of TM Journal no. 1915 dated KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 10 19.08.2019 Ex.PW1/20B, list of well known trademarks as published by Trademark Registry showing plaintiff's trademark INDIA GATE at Sr. no. 92 of the list Ex.PW1/20C; coloured screen shots of the website www.indiagatericeltd.com alongwith 'WHOIS' report Ex. PW1/21; criminal complaint dated 05.08.2020 filed before DCP, North office , Civil Lines , Delhi by the plaintiff against the defendants Ex. PW1/22 alongwith authority letter, screen shot of plaintiff's genuine website, screen shot of impugned website and screen shot of other websites where fake packaging are displayed Ex. PW1/23 A to Ex. PW1/23D; criminal complaint dated 14.08.2020 filed before DCP, North office , Civil Lines , Delhi by the plaintiff against the defendants Ex. PW1/24 alongwith complaint dated 05.08.2021; the emails received from the consumers and copies of the said email dated 11.08.2020 sent to the SBI Branch Manager Ex. PW1/24A to Ex. PW1/24C; computer print out of email dated 21.08.2020 sent by plaintiff company to Cyber Cell, Noida against INDIA GATE RICE LTD. (defendant) Ex. PW1/25 ; coloured printout of Whatsapp discussion with defendant's mobile no. 8420159226 mentioned on the impugned website of the defendant Ex. PW1/26; the letter of authorization dated 13.08.2020 signed by Sh. Anoop Kumar Gupta, Joint Managing Director issued by plaintiff company in the favour Sh. Saumya Sharma Ex. PW1/27.
19. PW-1 deposed that plaintiff company has come across four new domain names/websites namely, (i) http://www.indiagetfoods.co.in/. (ii) https://www.indiagate- rice.co.in/ (iii) https://www.indiagateric.org.in/ and (iv) https://indiagetfood.in/ contents of which have identical/similar KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 11 look and feel and contents as of the earlier impugned domain names and websites (www.indiagatericeltd.com; www.indigatericeltd.in ; www.indiagateric.co.in ; www.indiagatericeltd.co.in and www.indiagatefoods.in ) and these new domains/websites are not of the plaintiff and nor under the plaintiff's authority. PW-1 further deposed that these new websites are of defendant no. 1, who has slightly changed the extensions of the domains of the plaintiff's well known and well established registered trade mark INDIA GATE . Defendant no. 1 is a habitual cyber squatter, who is using the plaintiff's INDIA GATE trademark and plaintiff's other brands to make undue profits to the detriment of the plaintiff.
20. PW-1 further testified that the registrar and web hosting provider of the impugned domain names i.e. 1. http://www.indiagate-foods.co.in , GoDaddy.com LLC and UnifieldLayers.net; 2. https://www.indiagate-rice.co.in , GoDaddy.com LLC; 3. https://www.indiagaterice.org.in, Endurance Digital Domain Technology LLP and PDR (Public Domain Name Registry) and 4. https://indiagatefood.in , Hosting Concepts B. V. d/b/a Openprovider and PDR (Public Domain Name Registry)
21. PW-1 deposed that these registrars and web hosting providers are providing support to the impugned new websites/domains in their running and operation and any person desirous of creating and running a website can purchase such domains from the registrars and web hosting providers. PW-1 further deposed that such acts on the parts of the registrars and web hosting providers are also in violation of the plaintiff's rights in the trademark INDIA GATE and plaintiff's other trademarks.
KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 1222. PW-1 further relied upon 15 coloured printouts of impugned websites www.indiagatericeltd.com of defendants Ex. PW1/28 ; seven coloured printouts of impugned websites www.indiagatericeltd.in ; www.indiagaterice.co.in; www.indiagatericeltd.co.in and www.indiagatefoods.in Ex. PW1/29 A to D; coloured printouts of screenshots of impugned websites http://www.indiagate-foods.co.in alongwith printout of WHOIS and WHOIS hosting details Ex. PW/30; three coloured printouts of WHOIS details of http://www.indiagate-rice.co.in Ex. PW/31A to Ex. PW/31/C; coloured printouts of screenshots of impugned website https://www.indiagaterice.org.in/ alongwith printouts of WHOIS and WHOIS hosting details Ex. PW/32; coloured printouts of screenshots of impugned website http://indiagatefood.in/ alongwith printouts of WHOIS and WHOIS hosting details Ex. PW/33 and printouts of complaint made to GoDaddy.com LLC regarding impugned name https://www.indiagate-rice.co.in/ and their response of non- compliance Ex. PW/34.
23. This Court has perused the material on record and evidence led by the plaintiff. The testimony of PW-1 has remained unrebutted. Plaintiff has established that plaintiff is the proprietor of registered trademarks "INDIA GATE with device of India Gate". Plaintiff has established that the registered trademarks " INDIA GATE with device of India Gate" are well known marks as defined u/s 2 (1) (zg) of the Trademark Act. These facts and circumstances show that the plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the aforenoted trademarks and defendant is misusing and infringing the trademarks of the plaintiff and passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff. This not only causes KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 13 loss of profit to the plaintiff but also results in the inferior products and services made available to the public at large , who are deceived by the conduct of the defendant.
24. On appreciation of evidence on record, this Court is satisfied that defendants have adopted the trademark/label INDIA GATE with device of India Gate, in relation to the above said impugned goods and business of counterfeit goods used by the plaintiff and that there is a high degree of phonetic similarity and degree of resemblances which can very easily create confusion in the minds of members of the general public. The plaintiff being the holder of a registered trademark is entitled to protection against its infringement and the relief claimed.
25. In view of the above, this Court holds that plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants from dealing with the goods and services having infringing marks and defendants by themselves and also through their individual proprietors/ partners, directors, agents, heirs, successors, stockists and all other acting for and on their behalf are restrained from selling,soliciting,exporting,displaying, advertising, using and/or intended use, and/or dealing through the medium of the impugned trademark/label, name and website/domain name www.indiagatericeltd.com and/or any other mode and e-mail [email protected] or any other word/mark/domain name/top-level domain name/e-mail ID, or website/e-mail ID resurfacing with the different name, domain name, IDs, or in any manner and/or online platform or through social media or in any manner using the plaintiff's said Trademark/name or any other word/mark which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar word/mark to the plaintiff's said KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 14 trademark/label, name and domain name respectively in relation to impugned goods and business of rice and related/allied/cognate goods and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to amount i) Infringement of plaintiff's registered trademark;ii) Passing of its goods as that of the plaintiff in violation of the plaintiff's trademark/label in INDIAGATE with DEVICE OF INDIA GATE and iii) Dilution of plaintiff's trademark/label.
26. It is further directed that registrar of the impugned website/domain name www.indiagatericeltd to take down/block the pages with the contents relating to impugned trademark/label domain name www.indiagatericeltd or in alternative block the impugned website/domain name of the defendants.
27. Defendants are further restrained by themselves as well as through their individual proprietors/partners, directors, agents, heirs, successors, stockists and all other acting for and on their behalf from selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising, using and/or intended use, and/or dealing through the medium of the impugned trademark/label, name and following website/domain names :-
Impugned Domain Name Registrar Web Hosting Provider www.indiagtericeltd.in NameCheap,Inc. Unified layer www.indiagateric.com.in NameCheap, Inc. PDR (Public Domain Registry) www.indiagatericeltd.co.in GoDaddy LLC Cloudflare www.indiagatefoods.in NameCheap, Inc. Public Domain Registry or any other word/mark/domain name/top-level domain name/e- mail ID, or website/e-mail ID resurfacing with the different name, domain name, IDs, or in any manner and/or online platform or through social media or in any manner using the KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 15 plaintiff's said Trademark/name or any other word/mark which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar word/mark to the plaintiff's said trademark/label, name and domain name respectively in relation to impugned goods and business of rice and related/allied/cognate goods and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to amount i) Infringement of plaintiff's registered trademark; ii) Passing of its goods as that of the plaintiff in violation of the plaintiff's trademark/label in INDIA GATE with DEVICE OF INDIA GATE and iii) Dilution of plaintiff's trademark/label. It is further order that more registrar of the aforementioned impugned website/domain names to take down/block the pages with the contents relating to impugned trademark/label domain names or in alternative block the impugned website/domain name of the defendants. Since rendition of account by the defendants and delivering up of the impugned finished and unfinished goods is not pressed as defendants have failed to appear and is exparte. COSTS & DAMAGES
28. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has prayed for costs. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to grant nominal damages and punitive damages over and above any pleadings by the plaintiff.
29. In Jockey International Inc & Anr. Vs R. Chandra Mohan & Ors. 2014 (59) PTC 437 (Del) in para 43, it was held that damages must be awarded in such cases where defendants choose to stay from the proceedings of the Court and that defendants should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of evasion of Court proceedings. A party who chooses not to participate in Court proceedings and stays away must suffer the KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 16 consequences of damages as it cannot produce its account books. There is larger public purpose involved to discourage such parties indulging in such rights of deception and even if the same has a punitive element, it must be granted.
30. In the Hero Honda Motors Ltd. vs Shree Assuramji Scooter's case (supra), our High Court observed about the need of awarding damages against defendants who chose to stay away from the proceedings of the Court. It was further noted that every endeavour should be made to discourage such parties which indulge in acts of deception.
31. The time has come when the Courts dealing with actions for infringement of trade marks, copy rights, patents, etc. should not only grant compensatory damages but award punitive damages with a view to discourage and dishearten law breakers who indulge in violations with impunity out of lust for money so that they realize that in case they are caught, they would be liable not only to reimburse the aggrieved party but would be liable to pay punitive damages also, which may spell financial disaster for them. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances noted above, this Court is of the considered view that plaintiff is entitled to lumpsum costs of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of economic and commercial advantage which the defendants tried to gain at the expenses of the enviable reputation which has been created by the plaintiff apart from injunction.
32. Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to costs towards pleader's fee litigation expenses and Court fees . The present suit was filed on 31.08.2020 and total number of 17 dates of hearing have taken place in this case. Litigation expenses are assessed as KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 17 Rs. 25,500/- and court fees deposited by the plaintiff is Rs. 6700/-.
33. In view of the aforenoted findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. A decree of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff against the defendants is hereby passed. defendants by themselves and also through their individual proprietors/ partners, directors, agents, heirs, successors, stockists and all other acting for and on their behalf are restrained from selling,soliciting,exporting,displaying, advertising, using and/or intended use, and/or dealing through the medium of the impugned trademark/label, name and website/domain name www.indiagatericeltd.com and/or any other mode and e-mail [email protected] or any other word/mark/domain name/top-level domain name/e-mail ID, or website/e-mail ID resurfacing with the different name, domain name, IDs, or in any manner and/or online platform or through social media or in any manner using the plaintiff's said Trademark/name or any other word/mark which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar word/mark to the plaintiff's said trademark/label, name and domain name respectively in relation to impugned goods and business of rice and related/allied/cognate goods and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to amount i) Infringement of plaintiff's registered trademark;ii) Passing of its goods as that of the plaintiff in violation of the plaintiff's trademark/label in INDIAGATE with DEVICE OF INDIA GATE and iii) Dilution of plaintiff's trademark/label.
34. It is further directed that registrar of the impugned website/domain name www.indiagatericeltd to take down/block the pages with the contents relating to impugned trademark/label KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 18 domain name www.indiagatericeltd or in alternative block the impugned website/domain name of the defendants. Defendants are further restrained by themselves as well as through their individual proprietors/partners, directors, agents, heirs, successors, stockists and all other acting for and on their behalf from selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising, using and/or intended use, and/or dealing through the medium of the impugned trademark/label, name and following website/domain names :-
Impugned Domain Name Registrar Web Hosting Provider www.indiagtericeltd.in NameCheap,Inc. Unified layer www.indiagateric.com.in NameCheap, Inc. PDR (Public Domain Registry) www.indiagatericeltd.co.in GoDaddy LLC Cloudflare www.indiagatefoods.in NameCheap, Inc. Public Domain Registry or any other word/mark/domain name/top-level domain name/e- mail ID, or website/e-mail ID resurfacing with the different name, domain name, IDs, or in any manner and/or online platform or through social media or in any manner using the plaintiff's said Trademark/name or any other word/mark which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar word/mark to the plaintiff's said trademark/label, name and domain name respectively in relation to impugned goods and business of rice and related/allied/cognate goods and from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to or likely to amount i) Infringement of plaintiff's registered trademark; ii) Passing of its goods as that of the plaintiff in violation of the plaintiff's trademark/label in INDIA GATE with DEVICE OF INDIA GATE and iii) Dilution of plaintiff's trademark/label. It is further order that more registrar of the aforementioned impugned website/domain names KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 19 to take down/block the pages with the contents relating to impugned trademark/label domain names or in alternative block the impugned website/domain name of the defendants. Since rendition of account by the defendants and delivering up of the impugned finished and unfinished goods is not pressed as defendants have failed to appear and is exparte.
35. Moreover, in view of the aforenoted discussion, plaintiff is held entitled to total costs of Rs. 2,32,200/-. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File be consigned to record room. (Dictated and announced today i.e. On 24th November, 2022) (VINAY KUMAR KHANNA) District Judge (Commercial Court-02) South Disttt., Saket, New Delhi.
KRBL VS Ashok Kumar 20