Delhi District Court
Jay Kumar vs Veena Yadav on 17 February, 2026
CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs
Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026
IN THE COURT OF VINOD YADAV: DISTRICT JUDGE:
(COMMERCIAL COURT)-02: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: DELHI
CNR No.DLNW01-010853-2024
CS (Comm.) No.692/2024
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Jay Kumar,
Trading as: M/s Jay Chemical Works,
At: E-28 E-29, Panki Industrial Area,
Site II, Kanpur, Kanpur Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh-208022.
.....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Veena Yadav
Trading as M/s Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks
At: Majha Khurd, Dingrapaur, Kalwari,
Basti, Uttar Pradesh, 272301.
.....Defendant No.1
2. Mahendra Agrahari
Trading as M/s Shivam Traders,
At: Dumariyaganj, Banshi Road,
Persa Chauraha, Siddharth Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
.....Defendant No.2
3. Ram Gupta
Trading as M/s Ramu Kirana Store,
Babhnan Bazaar, Railway Crossing,
North Gaura Chauki Road,
Ghari Ghaat Bazar, Gonda, Uttar Pradesh.
.....Defendant No.3
(a) Date of institution of suit 12.11.2024
(b) Date of filing of Application U/o XIII-A CPC by plaintiff 26.03.2025
(c) Date of filing of Application U/o XIII-A Rule 5 CPC by 06.08.2025
the plaintiff
(d) Date of filing of Application U/o VII Rule 10 CPC by the 05.08.2025
defendant
(e) Date of hearing arguments on all the aforesaid 17.02.2026
applications
(f) Date of Judgment 17.02.2026
Digitally signed
VINOD by VINOD
YADAV
Date:
YADAV 2026.02.17
17:13:30 +0530
Page 1 of 60
CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs
Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026
SUIT UNDER SECTION 134 & 135 OF THE TRADEMARKS ACT,
1999 AND SECTION 55 OF COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 FOR
PERMANENT INJUNCTION, RESTRAINING INFRINGEMENT;
PASSING OFF; DELIVERY UP; RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS, ETC.
17.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Following applications are pending disposal on record:
(i) Application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC, filed by the defendant;
(ii) Application under Order XIII-A Rule 5 CPC, filed by the plaintiff; and
(iii) Application under Order XIII-A CPC, filed by the plaintiff, inter alia praying for passing of summary judgment in the matter.
Application U/o VII Rule 10 CPC:
2. (i) I have heard Shri Osho Mittal, Advocate, learned counsel for the defendants on this application. The earlier counsel representing the defendants has not been appearing in the matter for the last many dates.
(ii) Reply to this application has been filed.
3. A perusal of the aforesaid application reveals that the same has been predicated by the defendants upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.828/2022", titled as, "M/s Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Veda Seed Sciences Page 2 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 Pvt. Ltd." (DOD: 16.04.2025), however, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment has been set aside by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case reported as, "FAO (OS) (Comm.) No.66/2025", titled as, "M/s Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. V/s M/s Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd." (DOD: 03.12.2025), wherein the Division Bench has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
17. Whether the impugned judgment is correct in holding that the registration of the asserted trade marks of the appellant in Delhi would not confer jurisdiction on this Court.
17.1 The learned Single Judge has ruled against the appellant, on this issue, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhodha House.
17.2 We are unable to sustain this finding.
17.3 The Supreme Court, in Dhodha House, decided two appeals, i.e., Civil Appeal No.6248/1997 (Dhodha House v.
S.K. Maingi) and Civil Appeal
No.16/1999 (Patel Field Marshal
Industries and Ors. v. P.M. Diesel Ltd.).
Of these, the decision in Civil Appeal No.6248/1997 is not of relevance for our purpose.
17.4 In paras 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has placed reliance on the exposition of law, in Dhodha House, to the effect that the cause of action, to institute an infringement suit, arises only where when a registered trademark is used and not Page 3 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 "when the application is filed for registration of a trademark." In thus paraphrasing the ratio decidendi of Dhodha House, the learned Single Judge is correct.
17.5 Where the learned Single Judge has erred, in our opinion, is in his failing to note that the appellant was not invoking the jurisdiction of this Court because its application for registration of the asserted marks, was filed within the jurisdiction of this Court, but because the asserted marks were registered within such jurisdiction.
17.6 Dhodha House holds, unexceptionably, that a mere filing of an application for registration does not give rise to a cause of action for infringement. The registration of a trademark, on the other hand, unquestionably does. This is apparent from Section 28(1)18 of the Trade Marks Act which confers, on the proprietor of a validly registered trademark, both the right to exclusively use the said trademark as well as for remedies against infringement of the mark. Infringement, throughout Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, presupposes registration of the infringed trade mark, as each sub-section of Section 29 commences with the words "A registered trade mark is infringed ..."
17.7 There can, therefore, be no infringement of an unregistered trade mark. The very first criterion to be satisfied for a case of infringement to sustain is that the infringed mark is registered. The expression "cause of action" is defined, classically, as the Page 4 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 bundle of facts which the plaintiff would have to prove to succeed in the action. Alternatively, it is defined as "every fact which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgement of the court". Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd v.
Union of India comprehensively defined the expression "cause of action", thus:
"6.Cause of action implies a right to sue. The material facts which are imperative for the suitor to allege and prove constitute the cause of action. Cause of action is not defined in any statute. It has, however, been judicially interpreted inter alia to mean that every fact which would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the Court. Negatively put, it would mean that everything which, if not proved, gives the defendant an immediate right to judgment, would be part of cause of action. Its importance is beyond any doubt. For every action, there has to be a cause of action, if not, the plaint or the writ petition, as the case may be, shall be rejected summarily."
Viewed thus, it is obvious that the registration of the asserted mark is an indispensable part of the right to sue for infringement, and to succeed in the suit. If the defendant traverses the assertion of the plaintiff that the mark is registered, the plaintiff would have to prove the fact. The registration of the asserted mark is, Page 5 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 therefore, in a way the sine qua non for maintaining an infringement action.
17.8 Among the remedies available against infringement, of a registered trademark is, moreover, the remedy of injunction, as per Section 135(1)22 of the Trade Marks Act. The mere registration of a trademark, therefore, confers, on the proprietor of the registered trademark, the right to obtain an injunction, where the trademark is infringed. The registration of the trademark, therefore, unquestionably constitutes not just a part, but an indispensable part of the cause of action for an infringement suit.
17.9 The learned Single Judge, in holding that the registration of the asserted trademarks of the appellant in Delhi did not constitute part of the cause of action to institute the suit has, therefore, ruled contrary to Section 28(1) of the Trade Marks Act.
17.10 Dhodha House does not exposit any such proposition. What it holds is that territorial jurisdiction cannot be vested in a Court merely because the advertisement of the application filed by the plaintiff seeking registration of the asserted marks was within such jurisdiction. In this context, it is relevant to extract paras 30 and 31 of the decision in Dhodha House, thus:
"30. The said decision has no application in the instant case for more than one reason. For the purpose of registration of a trade mark, an application must be filed Page 6 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 in the branch office of the Registrar of Trade Marks. It is not in dispute that under Section 5(3) of the 1958 Act, the Central Government has issued a notification in the Official Gazette defining the territorial limits within which an office of the Trade Marks Registry may exercise its functions. The office of the Trade Marks Registry at New Delhi exercises jurisdiction over the States of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh and the Union Territory of Chandigarh and the National Capital Territory of Delhi. Whereas in Dhodha House v. S.K. Maingi no such application has been filed, admittedly in Patel Field Marshal Industries v. P.M. Diesels Ltd. the Delhi office has no jurisdiction as parties are residents of Rajkot and an application was filed by the appellant for registration of its trade mark at Bombay. If an objection is to be filed, the same has to be filed at Bombay. An advertisement by itself in a journal or a paper would not confer jurisdiction upon a court, as would be evident from the following observations of this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu:
"Therefore, broadly speaking, NICCO claims that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court because it became aware of the Page 7 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 advertisement in Calcutta, it submitted its bid or tender from Calcutta and made representations demanding justice from Calcutta on learning about the rejection of its offer. The advertisement itself mentioned that the tenders should be submitted to EIL at New Delhi; that those would be scrutinised at New Delhi and that a final decision whether or not to award the contract to the tenderer would be taken at New Delhi. Of course, the execution of the contract work was to be carried out at Hazira in Gujarat. Therefore, merely because it read the advertisement at Calcutta and submitted the offer from Calcutta and made representations from Calcutta would not, in our opinion, constitute facts forming an integral part of the cause of action. So also the mere fact that it sent fax messages from Calcutta and received a reply thereto at Calcutta would not constitute an integral part of the cause of action."
31. A cause of action will arise only when a registered trade mark is used and not when an application is filed for registration of the trade mark. In a given case, an application for grant of registration certificate may or may not be Page 8 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 allowed. The person in whose favour a registration certificate has already been granted (sic) indisputably will have an opportunity to oppose the same by filing an application before the Registrar, who has the requisite jurisdiction to determine the said question. In other words, a suit may lie where an infringement of trade mark or copyright takes place but a cause of action for filing the suit would not arise within the jurisdiction of the court only because an advertisement has been issued in the Trade Marks Journal or any other journal, notifying the factum of filing of such an application."
(Emphasis supplied) 17.11 Thus, even in Dhodha House, the application for registration of the trademark was filed at Bombay. The advertisement, advertising the filing of the application, was, inter alia, issued in Delhi. It was on the ground that the advertisement of the application was also issued in Delhi that the jurisdiction of this Court was sought to be invoked. The Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the advertisement of the filing of the application for registration of the mark, was also issued in Delhi, when the application itself was filed in Bombay, could not confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain the suit.
17.12 The appellant, in the present case, never sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on the ground that the Page 9 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 application for registration of the asserted trade marks was advertised within the jurisdiction of this Court, but that the registrations were granted by the Trade Mark Office at Delhi.
17.13 The Supreme Court has clearly held, in para 31 of Dhodha House, that the suit would lie where infringement of the trademark takes place. Infringement of trademark, per definition, is dependent on the registration of the mark. Thus, in para 31, the decision in Dhodha House in fact emphasizes the jurisdiction of the Court where the asserted mark is registered to entertain an infringement action. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the fact that the marks asserted by the appellant in the present case were registered within the jurisdiction of this Court was by itself a factor which entitled the appellants to institute the suit before this Court. The learned Single Judge, in our considered opinion, is not correct in having held otherwise.
18. Whether the Marketing Agreement formed part of the cause of action for instituting the suit and, therefore, whether the suit was amenable to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court 18.1 The finding, of the learned Single Judge, that the Marketing Agreement dated 1 January 2022 executed between the appellant and the respondent did not form part of cause of action in the suit is, to our mind, clearly fallacious. The learned Single Judge has extensively relied, in arriving at this finding, on the Page 10 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 fact that the appellant had moved IA 20138/2022 under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC, seeking leave to separately sue the respondent for breach of the Marketing Agreement and that leave, as sought, had been granted by a learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 12 July 2023. The learned Single Judge has also relied on the fact that, in paras 49 and 50 of the plaint, which dealt with cause of action and jurisdiction, there is no reference to the Marketing Agreement.
18.2 We are not able to concur with the learned Single Judge on any of these findings.
18.3 Firstly, a bare reading of the plaint makes it clear that the plaintiff had asserted, at more points than one, that the manner of use, by the respondent, of the infringing marks, was in breach of the Marketing Agreement executed between the appellant and the respondent. Inter alia, these assertions are to be found in paras 28 to 30 of the plaint, which already stand reproduced in para 3.2(viii) supra.
18.4 Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, in its various sub-sections, defines "infringement". Each sub-section commences with the words, "A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use ..." Ergo, infringement has necessarily to be by a person who has no authority to use the allegedly infringing mark either as its registered proprietor or by way of permitted user. A person who uses the mark as a permitted user cannot, Page 11 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 therefore, be an infringer of the mark.
18.5 It is for this reason that the appellant has specifically asserted, in the plaint, that the user of the infringing mark by the respondent was in breach of the Marketing Agreement and the extent to which the respondent had been permitted to use the appellant's mark thereunder. User of the appellant's mark in breach of the Marketing Agreement was, therefore, specifically alleged in the plaint, to buttress the assertion that the respondent was not using the infringing mark as a permitted user within the meaning of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act.
18.6 The learned Single Judge has failed to take stock of these assertions in the plaint, which more than amply demonstrate that the Marketing Agreement, and its covenants, constitute an essential part of the cause of action on which the plaint is based.
18.7 Once the Marketing Agreement and its covenants constitute a part of the cause of action on which the plaint is based, courts having jurisdiction over the place of execution of the Marketing Agreement would ipso facto have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the suit. On the aspect of cause of action founded on breach of a contract, the Supreme Court has held, in A.B.C. Laminart (P) Ltd v. A.P. Agencies, thus:
"15. In the matter of a contract there may arise causes of action of various kinds. In a suit for damages for breach of contract the cause of action consists of the making of the Page 12 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 contract, and of its breach, so that the suit may be filed either at the place where the contract was made or at the place where it should have been performed and the breach occurred. The making of the contract is part of the cause of action. A suit on a contract, therefore, can be filed at the place where it was made. The determination of the place where the contract was made is part of the law of contract."
(Emphasis supplied) In a similar vein, Prakash Kaur v. K.G. Ringshia holds that "in cases where cause of action consist of breach of contract, a suit can be filed at the place where contract is made or to be performed and also where breach occurs."
18.8 As the plaint of the appellant was premised on the ground that the use, by the respondent, of the allegedly infringing marks breached the Marketing Agreement between them, the Marketing Agreement constituted part of the cause of action on which the suit was based and, therefore, this Court, being the Court within whose jurisdiction the Marketing Agreement was admittedly executed, would be possessed of territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit and adjudicate on the lis.
19. Re. availability of the respondent's products on e-commerce websites 19.1 One of the grounds on which the appellant asserted that this Court has territorial jurisdiction in the matter, was Page 13 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 that the respondent's products are available on e-commerce websites, which can be accessed in Delhi. The learned Single Judge has observed that there are only two e-commerce websites to which specific allusion is to be found in the plaint, which are IndiaMart and Kalgudi.
19.2 The impugned judgment holds that availability of the respondent's marks on the IndiaMart and Kalgudi websites could not confer jurisdiction on this Court, as the listings of the products on the IndiaMart and Kalgudi websites was not at the instance of the respondent, but at the instance of some third parties.
19.3 The learned Single Judge has also relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Banyan Tree Holding to hold that as there was no evidence of any orders having been placed on IndiaMart or Kalgudi for purchasing the allegedly infringing products of the respondent, the listing of the said products on the said platforms could not constitute a basis for this Court to exercise jurisdiction.
19.4 The decision in Banyan Tree Holding 19.4.1 Banyan Tree Holding25 , the plaintiff before the Division Bench of this Court in the said case, sued the defendants for having used the mark "BANYAN TREE RETREAT" with a device of a Banyan Tree which, according to BTH, infringed its registered trademark. The Division Bench notes, in para 5 of its judgment, the recital, in the Page 14 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court on the aspect of territorial jurisdiction, as pleaded by BTH, thus:
"5. The learned single Judge has, in the referral order dated 11.8.2008, noticed that the plaintiff has in para 30 of the plaint claimed that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to entertain the suit.
According to the Plaintiff the Defendants solicit business through use of the impugned mark "BANYAN TREE RETREAT" and the Banyan device in Delhi. It is stated that "the Defendants have presence in Delhi through their website http://www.makprojects.com/banya ntree.htm which is accessible in Delhi." It is further contended that "the said website is not a passive website. It not only provides contact information but also seeks feedback and inputs from its customers through an interactive web-page."
Further, the Plaintiff submits that the services of the Defendants are being offered to the customers in Delhi "also because of the ubiquity, universality and utility of the features of the Internet and the World Wide Web and hence the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court."
19.4.2 The Division Bench formulated three questions as arising before it for Page 15 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 consideration, of which the first two are relevant, and may be reproduced thus:
"(i) For the purposes of a passing off action, or an infringement action where the Plaintiff is not carrying on business within the jurisdiction of a court, in what circumstances can it be said that the hosting of a universally accessible website by the Defendants lends jurisdiction to such Court where such suit is filed ("the forum court")?
(ii) In a passing off or infringement action, where the defendant is sought to be sued on the basis that its website is accessible in the forum state, what is the extent of the burden on the Plaintiff to prima facie establish that the forum court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?"
19.4.3 The Division Bench observed, at the outset of its discussion, that the suit before it was not one for infringement, but for passing off. It observed that, if the suit was one for infringement, this Court would in any event have territorial jurisdiction in the matter, in view of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, as BTH was carrying on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. In a case of passing off, however, Section 134 would not be applicable and jurisdiction would have to vest in the Court in terms of Section 20 of the CPC.
19.4.4 The defendants before this Court were situated at Hyderabad. As such, Page 16 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 Section 20(a) would not apply. BTH sought to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court on the basis of Section 20(c) of the CPC, contending that, as the defendants had an interactive website which could be accessed within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court had jurisdiction in the matter.
19.4.5 The Division Bench of this Court embarked on an exhaustive analysis of the entire law relating to territorial jurisdiction in the case of e-commerce, in this country as well as across the globe. Following the said analysis, questions (i) and (ii) as framed by it were answered thus, by the Division Bench:
"42. This Court holds that jurisdiction of the forum court does not get attracted merely on the basis of interactivity of the website which is accessible in the forum state. The degree of the interactivity apart, the nature of the activity permissible and whether it results in a commercial transaction has to be examined. For the 'effects' test to apply, the Plaintiff must necessarily plead and show prima facie that the specific targeting of the forum state by the Defendant resulted in an injury or harm to the Plaintiff within the forum state. For the purposes of a passing off or an infringement action (where the plaintiff is not located within the jurisdiction of the court), the injurious effect on the Plaintiff's business, goodwill or reputation within the forum state as a result of the Defendant's website Page 17 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 being accessed in the forum state would have to be shown. Naturally therefore, this would require the presence of the Plaintiff in the forum state and not merely the possibility of such presence in the future. Secondly, to show that an injurious effect has been felt by the Plaintiff it would have to be shown that viewers in the forum state were specifically targeted.
Therefore the 'effects' test would have to be applied in conjunction with the "sliding scale" test to determine if the forum court has jurisdiction to try a suit concerning internet based disputes.
43. The question no. (i) is accordingly answered.
Question (ii) : In a passing off or infringement action, where the defendant is sought to be sued on the basis that its website is accessible in the forum state, what is the extent of the burden on the Plaintiff to prima facie establish that the forum court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
44. This brings us to the question as to the extent of burden of proof on the Plaintiff to prima facie show that the Defendant has purposefully availed of the jurisdiction of this court. In the present case, it is argued that by enabling customers to go on the website and get a copy of its brochure and make enquiries, the Defendant must be held to have Page 18 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 purposefully availed of the jurisdiction of this court. The question that arises is for the purposes of Section 20 (c) CPC, in such circumstances, is what is the extent of the burden on the Plaintiff to show prima facie that a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the forum court.
45. This court holds that in order to prima facie establish that the Defendant purposefully availed of the jurisdiction of this court, the Plaintiff would have to show that the Defendant engaged in some commercial activity in the forum State by targeting its website specifically at customers within that State. This is consistent with the law laid down in Cybersell and reiterated later in Toys R Us. It is also consistent with the application of the 'tighter' version of the 'effects' test which is 'targeting'. In any action for passing off or infringement, it would have to be shown that the Defendant by using its mark intended to pass off its goods as that of the Plaintiff's. A mere hosting of a website which can be accessible from anyone from within the jurisdiction of the court is not sufficient for this purpose.
Also a mere posting of an advertisement by the Defendant depicting its mark on a passive website which does not enable the Defendant to enter into any commercial transaction with the viewer in the forum state cannot Page 19 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 satisfy the requirement of giving rise to a cause of action in the forum state. Even an interactive website, which is not shown to be specifically targeted at viewers in the forum state for commercial transactions, will not result in the court of the forum state having jurisdiction. In sum, for the purposes of Section 20 (c) CPC, in order to show that some part of the cause of action has arisen in the forum state by the use of the internet by the Defendant, the Plaintiff will have to show prima facie that the said website, whether euphemistically termed as "passive plus" or "interactive" was specifically targeted at viewers in the forum state for commercial transactions. The Plaintiff would have to plead this and produce material to prima facie show that some commercial transaction using the website was entered into by the Defendant with a user of its website within the forum state and that the specific targeting of the forum state by the Defendant resulted in an injury or harm to the Plaintiff within the forum state. Question no. (ii) is answered accordingly."
(Emphasis supplied) 19.4.6 The learned Single Judge is, therefore, correct in his view that, as per the law declared in Banyan Tree Holding, the mere existence of an interactive website of the defendant, accessible within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, would not be sufficient for the suit Page 20 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 to be maintainable here. It would additionally have to be shown that some commercial transaction was concluded within the jurisdiction of this Court.
xxxxx
4. In this view of the matter, it is hereby held that this Court has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present suit, as both the parties are available on e-commerce sites. The application filed by defendant under Order VII Rule 10 CPC accordingly stands dismissed.
Application U/o XIII-A Rule 5 CPC:
5. By way of this application, the plaintiff has sought to place on record the printout(s) of the extracts taken from various e- commerce sites and interactive website. Even otherwise, it is admitted position on record that both the parties are available on e- commerce websites. The documents being relevant are hereby taken on record. The application stands disposed in above terms.
Application U/o XIII-A CPC:
6. By way of this application, the plaintiff has sought summary judgment in the matter against the defendants. The facts of the case, in brief, required for the disposal of this application are that plaintiff is the sole proprietor of the firm namely M/s Jay Chemical Works and engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and exporting of detergent soap, detergent cake, detergent washing powder etc. along with other allied and cognate goods.
Page 21 of 60CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026
7. (i) It has been stated that in the year 1996, Mr.Jitender Kumar (brother of the Plaintiff) had coined, invented, adopted and conceived trademark/label HARA PATTA/GREENLEAF LEAF along with the device of HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF/ in relation to the goods detergent soap, detergent cake, washing powder, toilet soap etc. and started doing business of manufacturing, marketing and trading of the said goods under in the open market.
(ii) Thereafter, Mr.Jitender Kumar (brother of the plaintiff) vide license agreement/deed of agreement dated 07.01.1996, granted the plaintiff, right to use the trademark HARA PATTA along with its artistic work and also the goodwill associated with it in relation to detergent powder for a royalty of @ 5% of the sale as consideration.
(iii) Thereafter, on 23.02.1999, Mr.Jitender Kumar applied for registration of the trademark/label "HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF" in Class 03 in relation to Washing Powder, Cake, Toilet Soap, Aggarbatti (With condition that Registration of This Trade Mark Shall Give No Right to The Exclusive Use of The All Descriptive Matter Appearing on The Label) with a user claim of 01.01.1996 and the said application vide No.893660 got registered in the name of plaintiff's Page 22 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 predecessor namely Mr Jitender Kumar before the concerned Trademark registry.
(iv) It has been claimed that vide assignment deed dated 02.01.2004, Mr.Jitender Kumar transferred all the rights and title of the Brand name under the Trademark/label "HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF" (Trademark application No.893660) to the plaintiff/Jay Kumar, trading as M/s Jay Chemical Works for a consideration of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only). Further, the plaintiff on 05.02.2004 had filed a TM.24 before the trademark Registry with respect to the application No.893660 for recording his name as subsequent proprietor by way of Assignment or transfer of Mark and vide order dated 28.07.2004 of the Registry, plaintiff was registered as subsequent proprietor in respect of the said registered trade mark.
8. It has been further stated that since the year 1996, the plaintiff has been using using, soliciting, displaying, marketing other label under the trademark/label HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF/ / along with specific part of the trademark/label GREEN LEAF/SUPER STRONG POWERS/ / / in relation to detergent soap, detergent cake, washing powder, toilet soap etc. As such, the plaintiff claims himself to be the owner and proprietor trademark/label/artistic work "HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF/ Page 23 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 SUPER STRONG POWER/ / / / / / ".
9. (i) It has been averred that on 14.09.2001, plaintiff filed an application bearing No.1044852 for the registration of trademark/label SUPER STRONG POWER / in relation to Washing Powder, Cake, Toilet Soap, Aggarbatti included in Class 03 with a user claim of 31.12.1996.
(ii) Subsequently on 07.08.2002, plaintiff filed another application for registration of the trademark/label "HARA PATTA/ " vide Application No.1124516. The plaintiff further on 18.11.2002 filed an application bearing No.1151424 for the registration of the trademark/label GREEN LEAF/ in relation Detergent Cake, Detergent Powder included in Class 3 with a user claim of 01.01.1996 and the same stands registered.
(iii) It has been further stated that on 04.02.2021 plaintiff had also filed an application vide application No.4848046 for registration of the trademark/tradename/JAY CHEMICAL Page 24 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 WORKS in relation to Detergent Cake, Detergent Powder, Washing Powder, Liquid Soap, Dish Wash under Class 3 which already stood registered.
10. (i) It has been further stated that in order to acquire statutory right in the said Trade Mark/Label/trade dress/packaging, plaintiff had also applied for and obtained the Trade Mark registrations pertaining to some of its said Trade Mark/label/trade dress/packaging, the details whereof is provided hereunder:
APPLICATION CLASS DATE OF USER STATUS DISCLAIMER/ NO. APPLICATIO CLAIM CONDITION N 893660 03 23.09.1999 01.01.1996 Registered REGISTRATION OF GREEN LEAF / THIS TRADE MARK SHALL GIVE NO RIGHT TO THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF THE ALL DESCRIPTIVE MATTER APPEARING ON THE LABEL.
1124516 03 07.08.2002 01.01.1996 Rectificatio REGISTRATION OF
HARA PATTA/ n Filed THIS TRADE MARK
SHALL GIVE NO
RIGHT TO THE
EXCLUSIVE USE OF
THE DESCRIPTIVE
MATTER APPERING
ON THE LABEL
Page 25 of 60
CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 1151424 03 08.11.2002 01.01.1996 Registered N/A GREEN LEAF / 1044852 03 14.09.2001 13.12.1996 Registered N/A SUPER STRONG POWER/ 4848046 03 04.02.2021 04.05.1993 Registered N/A JAY CHEMICAL WORKS (Word) 1314232 30 11/10/2004 Proposed To Registered N/A GREEN LEAF/ Be Used 1314233 34 11/10/2004 Proposed To Registered N/A HARA PATTA/ Be Used
(ii) It has been claimed that the Legal Proceeding Certificates (LPC) in respect of some of the aforesaid trade mark Page 26 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 applications have been duly applied before the concerned registry of Trademark.
11. (i) It has been contended that on account of long and continuous use of the plaintiff's said trademark/label/artistic work "HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF/SUPER STRONG POWER along with the device of HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF/ SUPER STRONG POWER" has already become a distinctive indicium of plaintiff's said business & goods there under.
(ii) It has been further contended that in the year 2009, plaintiff has also obtained a Copyright Certificate for the artistic work under the title of work HARA PATTA WASHING POWDER with Device of Green Leaf bearing Registration No.A-86376/2009 and the same is an original artwork within the meaning of Copyright Act, 1957.
(iii) It has been further contended that on account of prior adoption and continuous commercial use of the said trademark/label HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF/SUPER STRONG POWER along with the device of HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF/ SUPER STRONG POWER label, plaintiff enjoys monopoly over the same.
12. It has been next averred that with the advent of e- commerce and increasing popularity of the internet and digitization, plaintiff has been continuously promoting his business/goods under the trademark/label/artistic work "HARA Page 27 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 PATTA/GREEN LEAF/SUPER STRONG POWER along with the device of HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF/ SUPER STRONG POWER" through different means and modes including visual, audio, print and social media along with advertisement in leading newspapers, magazines, advertisement in trade literatures, trade hoardings and boards etc. The plaintiff also solicits, displays, promotes its goods through various e-commerce cum interactive websites, viz. www.indiamart.com, www.meesho.com, the screenshots whereof is being depicted in para No.17 of the plaint.
13. It has been emphasized that by reason of extensive advertisement and promotional activities coupled with excellent quality and the high standards of the plaintiff's business and goods, the trade level of the plaintiff enjoys solid, enduring and first-class reputation in the market. The business and goods under the said trademark/label are distinctive indicium of the plaintiff and has acquired secondary significance. It has been claimed that the plaintiff's said Trademark/Label has strong goodwill and reputation in India within the meaning of Section 29 (4) of the Trade Marks Act 1999.
14. It has been claimed that plaintiff spends huge amount of money in advertising and promotion of its products under the said trade marks and has a huge turnover against sale of its products under said trademarks and has strong growth trajectory. It has been averred that the plaintiff is having the exclusive rights to use the said trademarks with respect to its products and therefore no one is entitled to use the said trademark without a license or Page 28 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 assignment by the plaintiff. It is contended that the public at large and trade associate, identify and distinguish the said trade mark/label/trade name with the plaintiff and plaintiff's goods/services and business alone and the same is entitled to be registered, recognized and protected under the category of well- known trademarks within the meaning of provisions of section-2(1) (zg) and section-11 of Trade Marks Act, 1999.
15. (i) Defendants are stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading, soliciting, distributing of detergent powder, detergent cake, soap, dish wash cake, along with other substances for laundry use and allied/related goods.
(ii) It has been stated that defendant No.1 has been manufacturing and selling the infringed products bearing the impugned Trademark/Label/trade dress in different areas of Delhi. It has been claimed that defendant No.1 has filed a trademark application for the registration of the impugned trademark "UNIQUE PATTA" in Class 03 before the Trademark Registry, which stood abandoned due to non-filing of counterstatement on behalf of the defendant No.1.
(iii) Defendants No.2 and 3 are stated to be dealer/distributor of the defendant No.1's impugned product under the impugned trademark/label trade dress. It is claimed that all the the defendants are acting in collusion and connivance with each other.
16. It has been emphasized that defendants with mala-fide intention and to pass on its products, as those of the plaintiff, has Page 29 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 malafidely and deliberately adopted the identical trademark/label/trade-dress/packaging/color combination/artistic work "UNIQUE PATTA/ / in relation to the impugned goods and business which is identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's well recognized trademark/label/trade dress/packaging/colour combination/artistic work "HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF/ SUPER STRONG POWER// / / / / / ".
17. It has been stated that defendant No.1 had filed a trademark application for the impugned trademark/label UNIQUE PATTA (word mark) bearing application No.5688997, dated 18.11.2022 on "proposed to be used basis" and on all India basis in relation to the impugned goods. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff vide opposition dated 22.12.2023 inter alia claiming therein that plaintiff is the prior, bonafide, senior user of the Trademark/label "HARA PATTA" and that the defendant's trademark/label "UNIQUE PATTA" is identical with and or similar to the Plaintiff's trademark/label HARA PATTA. Subsequently, the Page 30 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 trademark Registry vide order dated 26.09.2024 abandoned the defendant's impugned application No.5688997 due to non-filing of counterstatement on behalf of the defendant, details whereof is given hereunder:
APPLICATION CLASS DATE OF USER STATUS NO. APPLICATION CLAIM 5688997 03 18.11.2022 Proposed Abandoned To Be Used
18. It has been further stated that defendants have copied the plaintiff's trademark/artistic work including the colour combination, depiction of a green leaf enclosed within a circular emblem, highlighted by a radiating sunburst pattern in a bright red and yellow color scheme. It has been claimed that the tagline "SUPER CLEANING POWER" has also been copied by the defendants merely by replacing the word "STRONG" with "CLEANING", thereby resulting in the infringement of the plaintiff's trademark/label/SUPER STRONG POWER/ ".
19. It has been further stated that defendant No.1 has been soliciting, advertising and using various e-commerce-cum-
interactive websites including www.indiamart.com for displaying, soliciting, and advertising its impugned goods bearing the impugned trademark/trade dress/packaging style which is accessible all across India, the screenshot whereof is provided in paragraph No.30 of the plaint.
Page 31 of 60CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026
20. It has been contended that defendant(s) have adopted the impugned trademark only with a view to trade upon the longstanding goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff's said trademark/label. The use of the impugned trademark/label by the defendant in relation to impugned goods and business amounts to unfair advantage which is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the of the plaintiff trademark/label/trade dress. It is claimed that aforesaid action of defendant(s) is in violation of Section 29(2) and 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1999.
21. (i) It has been alleged that in the second week of December' 2023, plaintiff came to know about the impugned Trademark application bearing No.5688997 of the defendant No.1 and immediately filed a notice of opposition in the impugned trademark application of the defendant No.1 on 22.12.2023. It is further alleged that in the month of October, 2024 plaintiff came to know about the indulgence of the defendants in the impugned activity under the impugned trademark/label/packaging/trade dress.
(ii) It has been further contended that defendants have been making clandestine and surreptitious sales and are supplying, soliciting and displaying its impugned trade mark/label/trade dress/packaging/ artistic work to the dealers and distributors in the markets of Delhi, including North-west District areas.
(iii) It has been averred that by doing so, the defendant(s) are not only damaging the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff, but is/are also causing financial loss to the plaintiff by reaping unfair advantage of the repute and distinctive character of the trademark of the plaintiff.
Page 32 of 60CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026
22. (i) It is worthwhile to note that alongwith the instant suit, plaintiff had also filed application U/o XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC, inter alia seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant as well as application U/o XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of Local Commissioner(s) for seizure of impugned goods from the premises of defendant(s).
(ii) Vide detailed order dated 12.11.2024, ad-interim ex- parte injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant(s) and consequently till further orders, the defendants by themselves as also through their individual proprietor/partners, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf were restrained from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising or by any other mode or manner dealing in or using the impugned trademark/label/trade dress/packaging/colour combination/artistic work "UNIQUE PATTA/ / " or any other trade mark/label which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark/label/trade dress/packaging/color combination/artistic work "HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF/SUPER STRONG POWER// Page 33 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 / / / / / " in relation to their impugned goods and business of washing powder, detergent powder, detergent cake, soap etc., and other allied and cognate or from doing any other acts or deeds, thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trademark(s), copyright and passing off their products as that of plaintiff.
(iii) Further, vide order dated 12.11.2024, application filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC was also allowed and three Local Commissioners were appointed in the matter with the directions to visit the premises of defendants and seize the impugned goods. The learned Local Commissioners accordingly executed the commission by seizing the counterfeit/infringed goods and consequently filed their reports in the matter.
23. After getting served, defendant(s) filed written statement, inter alia questioning the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, however, on merits following categorical admissions were made, the relevant portion whereof is re-produced hereunder:
___________________________________ xxxxx Reply on Merit:
.......
4. ........
It is a matter of record the defendant no.l Page 34 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 namely Ms. Veena Yadav has filed a trademark application for the registration of the impugned trademark "UNIQUE PATTA"
in class 03 before the Trademark Registry and the same sands abandoned due to non- filing of counterstatement on behalf of the defendant no. l. It is wrong and denied that the defendant no.2 and 3 are the dealer/distributor of the defendant No.l's impugned product under the impugned trademark/label trade dress. It is wrong and denied that all the defendants are acting in collusion and connivance with each other. It is wrong and denied that the defendants with malafide intention and to pass on its products, as those of the plaintiff, has malafidely and deliberately adopted the identical Trademark/label/trade-dress/ packaging/ color combination/artistic work "UNIQUE PATTA/ (hereinafter referred to "impugned trademark/label/trade-dress/ packaging/color combination/artistic work) in relation to the impugned goods and business which is identical and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's well recognised tradermark/label/trade dress/packaging/colour combination/artistic work "HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF/ SUPER STRONG POWER". It is a matter of record that the defendant no. I had filed a trademark application for the impugned trademark/label UNIQUE PATTA (word mark) bearing application no.5688997 (herein referred to as "Impugned trademark application of the defendant") dated 18.11.2022 on Proposed to be used basis and on all India basis in relation to the impugned goods. It is a matter of record that the defendant's trademark application bearing no. 5688997 was opposed by the plaintiff vide opposition dated 22.12.2023 stating the Page 35 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 reason that the plaintiff is the prior, bona fide, senior user of the Trademark/label "HARA PATTA" and that the defendant's trademark/label "UNIQUE PATTA" is identical with and or similar to the Plaintiffs trademark/label HARA PATTA. It is a matter of record that the trademark Registry vide order dated 26.09.2024 abandoned the defendant's impugned application no.
5688997 due to non-filing of counterstatement on behalf of the defendant.
It is a matter of record that the Defendants have copied all the essential features of the plaintiffs trademark/ label/trade dress/ colour combination. It is a matter of record that the Defendants have copied the plaintiffs trademark/artistic work including the colour combination, depiction of q green leaf enclosed within a circular emblem, highlighted by a radiating sunburst pattern in a bright red and yellow color scheme. It is a matter of record that the words "Unique Patta" is prominently displayed in bold, stylized red lettering with a yellow outline which is identical as that of the plaintiffs said trademark/label. It is a matter of record that the tagline "SUPER CLEANING POWER" has also been copied by the defendants merely by replacing the word "STRONG" with "CLEANING" which also results in the infringement of the plaintiff s trademark/label/SUPER STRONG POWER". It is a matter of record that the dishonesty and unlawful intention of the defendants can be gathered from the fact that the defendants have not only copied all its element including colour combination, letting style, placement, font style, design but has further copied the idea of representation of a child on the back side of the trademark/label/packaging and is using, Page 36 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 displaying, soliciting the impugned Trademark/label/tradedress/packaging/color combination/ artistic work "UNIQUE PATTA" which is identical and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's well recognised trademark/label/trade dress/packaging/colour combination/artistic work "HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF/SUPER STRONG POWDER" in order to associate/ to show relationship with the plaintiff and sell their inferior goods in the market.
xxxxx
------------------------------------------------------
24. The plaintiff thereafter instead of leading PE in the matter, preferred an application under Order XIII-A CPC, inter alia praying for passing of summary judgment in the matter.
25. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff on the aforesaid application and gone through the entire material on record. It has been very vehemently argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff that there is no need to record evidence in the matter. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following judgments:
(a) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.1203/2018", titled as, "AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & Ors. V/s Gyan Singh & Anr." (DOD: 25.04.2023);
(b) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.478/2019", titled as, "Sandisk LLC V/s Amit & Ors." (DOD: 01.03.2023);
(c) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.564/2020", titled as, "Imagine Marketing Private Ltd. V/s M/s Green Accessories Through Its Proprietor & Anr." (DOD:
21.03.2022);Page 37 of 60
CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026
(d) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.675/2019", titled as, "Dhani Loans And Services Limited & Anr. V/s WWW.Dhanifinance.Com & Ors." (DOD: 12.10.2022);
(e) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.929/2018", titled as, "Sanofi & Anr. V/s Faisal Mushtaq & Ors." (DOD:
16.11.2018);
(f) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.413/2021", titled as, "LT Foods Limited V/s Saraswati Trading Company"
(DOD: 11.11.2022);
(g) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.1219/2018", titled as, "Shri Ved Prakash Garg Trading As M/s Parul Food Products V/s M/s Gurudev Industries" (DOD: 20.12.2018);
(h) Case reported as, "CS (OS) No.3466/2012", titled as, "Disney Enterprises Inc. & Anr. V/s Balraj Muttneja & Ors."
(DOD: 20.02.2014); and
(i) Case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.564/2020" titled as, "Imagine Marketing Private Limited V/s M/s Green Accessories Through: Its Proprietor & Anr." (DOD:
21.03.2022).
26. The judgment in case of LT Foods (supra) and Shri Ved Prakash Garg (supra) has been referred to establish the point that the report of Local Commissioner in itself can be treated as evidence.
27. The learned counsel has further very vehemently argued that in the teeth of material available on record in the form of plaint, documents and the report of leaned Local Commissioner, no useful purpose would be served asking the plaintiff to lead evidence with regard to the grant of prayer qua damages and cost.
Page 38 of 60CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026
28. In case reported as, "AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO"
(supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to observe as under:
xxxxx
10. At the hearing on 19thApril, 2023, the counsels for the defendants on instructions submitted that the defendants were agreeable to a decree of permanent injunction being passed against the defendants. Counsel for the plaintiffs also pressed for costs and damages of Rs.10,00,000/- to be apportioned between the defendants.
xxxxx xxxxx
17. I am of the opinion that no purpose would be served by directing the plaintiffs to lead evidence by filing examination-in-chief by way of affidavit. The defendants have no reasonable prospect of succeeding in the present suit. Therefore, in my opinion, this is a fit case where a Summary Judgment in terms of Order XIII-A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes of a specified value, read with Rule 27 of the IPD Rules, deserves to be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.
xxxxx
29. The Hon' ble High Court, thereafter in paragraphs No.22 and 23 of the aforesaid judgment has been pleased to lay down as under:
xxxxx
22. Clearly, the customers are being misled by the defendants and the entire effort is deliberate and dishonest. This amounts to dilution of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs' marks and causing loss to the Page 39 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 plaintiffs in business and reputation. The members of the public are bound to confuse bicycles manufactured and sold by the defendants under the mark VOLVO as emanating from the plaintiffs. The defendants have been making unlawful gains at the expense of the plaintiffs. I am convinced that this is nota case of innocent adoption by the defendants. The Court cannot ignore such flagrant misuse of the plaintiffs' marks by the defendants. Even though the claim of the plaintiffs for damages, based on the recoveries made at the premises of the defendant no.2 and the invoices placed on record, is close to Rs.20,00,000/-, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-towards damages and costs to the plaintiffs.
23. Taking into account that the defendants no. 3 and 4 are the manufacturers and suppliers of the aforesaid goods and the defendants no.1and 2 were selling the goods supplied by the defendants no.3 and 4, out of the aforesaid amount, the defendants no.3 and 4 shall be liable to pay Rs.6,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs and the defendants no.1 and 2 shall be liable to pay Rs.3,50,000/- in favour of the plaintiffs.
xxxxx
30. The other judgment(s) sought to be relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff also lays down the same law.
31. Amended Order XIIIA of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, enables the Court to decide a claim or part thereof without recording oral evidence. Order XIIIA of CPC seeks to avoid the long drawn process of leading oral evidence in certain eventualities. Consequently, the said provision enables disposal of Page 40 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 commercial disputes in a time bound manner and promotes the object of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
32. Rule 3 of Order XIII-A of CPC empowers the Court to grant a summary judgment against a defendant where on an application filed in that regard, the Court considers that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending a claim and there is no other compelling reason as to why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence. Order XIIIA (3) of CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, is reproduced herein below:-
xxxxx "3. Grounds for summary judgment.--The Court may give a summary judgment against a plaintiff or defendant on a claim if it considers that-
(a) the plaintiff has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending the claim, as the case may be; and
(b) there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence."
xxxxx
33. Now, coming back to the facts of instant case. A perusal of record, particularly page 123 of the paper book shows the comparative analysis of the marks of both the sides, which for ready reference is re-produced hereunder:
Page 41 of 60CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 xxxxx PLAINTIFF'S TRADEMARK/ LABEL/ DEFENDANTS' IMPUGNED TRADE DRESS/ARTISTIC WORK TRADEMARK/LABEL/TRADE DRESS/ARTISTIC WORK Page 42 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026
34. The aforesaid comparative analysis shows and which fact has even been admitted by the defendant that following similarities are there in the marks:
(a) Word "PATTA" is common;
(b) Green leaf enclosed within a circular emblem,
highlighted by a radiating sunburst pattern in a bright and yellow color scheme; and
(c) Tagline is somewhat similar and on the back side of the wrapper, image of a child is seen.
35. It is further evident that plaintiff has trademark registration in his name, which are depicted on pages 125 and 162 of the paper book, which for ready reference are re-produced hereunder:
Page 43 of 60CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 Page 44 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 Page 45 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026
36. Even copyright of the plaintiff is registered, which is clearly manifested at page Nos.195 and 196 of the paper book, details whereof is re-produced hereunder:
Page 46 of 60CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 Page 47 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026
37. Whereas, the defendants have no registration of any sort in their name. It is, however, apparent that defendant No.1 had applied for grant of trademark in the name of "UNIQUE PATTA (word mark)", vide application dated 18.11.2022, bearing Temp.Ref.No.7925673 on "proposed to be used basis" (page 353 of the paper book), however, the same was abandoned by the Trade Mark Registry vide order dated 26.09.2024 (page 371 of the paper book), which for ready reference is re-produced hereunder:
____________________________________ xxxxx Government of India Trade Mark Registry In the matter of an Application No.5688997 in Class 3 in the name of "VEENA YADAV"
(Proprietor) ORDER Trade Mark Application No.5688997 in Class 3 was advertised in Journal No.2123, dated 25.09.2023. Subsequently, above opposition was filed under Section 21(1) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 by the above named opponent on 22.12.2023 to oppose the registration of Trade Mark applied for the Notice of Opposition was served to the applicant on 19.03.2024 and till date no Counter Statement filed by the applicant.
Hence, the Application No.5688997 in Class 3 is deemed as ABANDONED by operation of Section 21(2) of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 and consequently opposition No/s.1265967 abates.
There shall be no order as to cost in respect of Page 48 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 the above proceeding.
Signed and Sealed at Delhi dated this 26 September' 2024 xxxxx
-------------------------------------------------------
38. It is further evident that even the label of plaintiff "HARA PATTA" is registered (Application No.893660).
39. Therefore, it is clearly seen that defendant(s) have adopted the impugned trademark(s) which are visually, structurally, deceptively and confusingly similar to plaintiff's registered trademarks.
40. The defendants cannot be allowed to piggy bag upon the reputation of plaintiff. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case involving somewhat similar facts, i.e in case reported as, "1992 SCC Online Del 122", titled as, "The Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. V/s Mahavir Steels & Ors." (DOD: 25.02.1992), has been pleased to hold as under:
xxxxx
14. .........An imitation remains an imitation whether it is done by one or by many. It acquires no legitimacy. A wrong is not righted by the following it musters.
Infringement of trade mark by a trader cannot be justified on the ground that there are others like him who are doing the same. There is a growing tendency to copy the trade marks to cash upon some one else's business reputation . The pirates of trade marks are like parasites clinging to others for their growth. Imitators of trade marks have the sole object of Page 49 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 diverting the business of others. This tendency must be curbed in the interest of the trade and the consumers.
xxxxx
41. It is further a matter of record that three Local Commissioners visited the three different premises of defendants and found/seized substantial quantity of impugned goods bearing the impugned and falsified trademark "UNIQUE PATTA/ / " from their premises. The details of the estimated cost of the seized impugned goods, as depicted in the report of learned Local Commissioner(s) is re- produced hereunder:
S.No. Name of Local Address of defendant Quantity of Estimated Cost Commissioner from where impugned impugned goods of the seized goods were seized seized impugned cost (In Rs. Approx.)
1. Shri Prateek Veena Yadav Sampling bags (39) Rs.1,500/-
Jindal, Advocate (Defendant No.1) + Credit Note of 500 gm x 50 pkts (1)
2. Shri Naveen Mahendra Agrahari 1175 Kgs of Rs.82,000/-
Tayal, Advocate (Defendant No.2) impugned goods (Approx.)
3. Shri Nitish Ram Gupta 15 Kgs of Rs.1,100/-
Sharma, (Defendant No.3) impugned goods
Advocate (Approx.)
Page 50 of 60
CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026
42. In case reported as, "CS (Comm.) No.126/2022", titled as, "M.L Brother LLP V/s Mahesh Kumar Bhuralal Tanna"
(DOD: 12.05.2022), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to lay down that Local Commissioner's report can be read in evidence in terms of Order XXVI Rule 10(2) CPC. For ready reference, the said observations are re-produced as under:
xxxxx
10. Order 26 Rule 10 (2) CPC stipulates that the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by the Commissioner shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. The said provision reads as under:
10. Procedure of Commissioner.-- (1) The Commissioner, after such local inspection as he deems necessary and after reducing to writing the evidence taken by him, shall return such evidence, together with his report in writing signed by him, to the Court.
(2) Report and depositions to be evidence in suit. Commissioner may be examined in person.--The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him (but not the evidence without the report) shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record; but the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation."
Page 51 of 60CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026
11. In Levi Strauss & Co. v. Rajesh Agarwal 2018 IAD (Delhi) 622, this Court examined the said provision and held that once the Commissioner has filed the evidence along with his report, it becomes evidence in the suit itself. Under Order 26 Rule 10(2) CPC it is not mandatory to examine the Commissioner to admit the report of the Commissioner as evidence in the suit. The relevant observations are as under:
8. The Local Commissioner is in fact a representative of the Court itself and it is for this reason that Order 26 Rule 10 (2) of CPC clearly provides that once the Commissioner has filed the evidence along with his report the same shall be treated as evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record.
xxx xxx xxxx
10. The rationale behind Order 26 Rule 10 (2) of CPC is clear i.e. the Commissioner is appointed as a representative of the Court and evidence collected by the Commissioner along with the report of the Commissioner would be evidence in the suit, subject to any objection raised by any party. If any party has any objection to Commissioner's report or to the evidence, such party has an option to examine the Commissioner personally in open Court. Such examination is however, neither compulsory nor required especially in cases where the party does not Page 52 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 challenge the report. In the present case, a perusal of the written statement filed by the Defendant clearly reveals that the Defendant does not challenge the Commissioner's report. Para of the written statement is set out below..."
12. This position of law has been reiterated by this Court in Vinod Goel v. Mahesh Yadav [RFA 598/2016 decided on 23rd May, 2018] wherein the Court observed as under:
"7. It is the settled proposition in law that when a Commissioner is appointed, he acts as the officer of the Court and it is not necessary for the Commissioner to be examined. This is clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in Misrilal Ramratan & Ors. Mansukhlal & Ors. v. A.S. Shaik Fathimal & Ors., 1995 Supp (4) SCC 600, wherein the Court held as under:
"It is now settled law that the report of the Commissioner is part of the record and that therefore the report cannot be overlooked or rejected on spacious plea of non-examination of the Commissioner as a witness since it is part of the record of the case."
8. Even this Court, recently in Levis Strauss v. Rajesh Agarwal [RFA 127/2007 decision dated 3rd January, 2018], held as under
"11. The rationale behind Order 26 Rule 10 (2) of CPC is clear i.e. the Commissioner is appointed as a Page 53 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 representative of the Court and evidence collected by the Commissioner alongwith the report of the Commissioner would be evidence in the suit, subject to any objection raised by any party. If any party has any objection to Commissioner's report or to the evidence, such party has an option to examine the Commissioner personally in open Court. Such examination is however, neither compulsory nor required especially in cases where the party does not challenge the report."
9. Mr. Prag Chawla clearly concedes that there may be no requirement to examine the Local Commissioner once the Commissioner is appointed by a Court.
10. Under these circumstances, since the Commissioner had visited the suit property and had submitted the report, it is deemed appropriate that the matter is remanded back to the Trial Court to decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the report of the Local Commissioner, Mr. Y.D. Nagar dated 5th January, 2000 in Suit No.2198/1999.
13. In view of Order 26 Rule 10(2) CPC and the judgments discussed above, the settled legal position that emerges is that the report of the Local Commissioner can be treated as evidence in the suit where it is not challenged by any party. Accordingly, in the present case the report of the Local Commissioner and the contents therein can be relied upon by the Court as evidence as the same is unchallenged.
xxxxx Page 54 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 (underlining which is mine emphasized)
43. There is no opposition on the part of defendants to the reports of three learned Local Commissioners filed in the matter.
44. (i) After considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, I am of the considered opinion that there is no real prospect of defendants succeeding in proving their defence.
(ii) Thus, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to meander mindlessly in Court and to clog the justice delivery system. Therefore, in my opinion, present is a fit case where the Summary Judgment in terms of Order XIII-A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, deserves to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment in case reported as, "2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764", titled as, "Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. V/s Kunwer Sachdev", wherein the Hon' ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to observe as under:
xxxxx "90. To reiterate, the intent behind incorporating the summary judgment procedure in the Commercial Court Act, 2015 is to ensure disposal of commercial disputes in a time-bound manner. In fact, the applicability of Order XIIIA, CPC to commercial disputes, demonstrates that the trial is no longer the default procedure/norm.
91. Rule 3 of Order XIIIA, CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, empowers the Court to grant a summary judgment against the defendant where the Court considers that the defendant has no Page 55 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 real prospects of successfully defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording of oral evidence. The expression "real" directs the Court to examine whether there is a "realistic" as opposed to "fanciful" prospects of success.
This Court is of the view that the expression "no genuine issue requiring a trial" in Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure and "no other compelling reason.....for trial" in Commercial Courts Act can be read mutatis mutandis. Consequently, Order XIIIA, CPC would be attracted if the Court, while hearing such an application, can make the necessary finding of fact, apply the law to the facts and the same is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means of achieving a fair and just result.
92. Accordingly, unlike ordinary suits, Courts need not hold trial in commercial suits, even if there are disputed questions of fact as held by the Canadian Supreme Court in Robert Hryniak (supra), in the event, the Court comes to the conclusion that the defendant lacks a real prospect of successfully defending the claim."
xxxxx
45. Considering the present case on the touchstone of the law laid down in the above referred judgments, I find that no useful purpose would be served, firstly by framing the issue with regard to grant of damages & cost and then asking the plaintiff to lead evidence in the matter. I am further of the considered opinion that there is no defence available on record on part of defendants which debars the plaintiff from claiming decree in the matter, as Page 56 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 there is no real prospect of defendant successfully contesting their claim.
46. As regards the damages claimed for by the plaintiff, it is noted that The Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 provide guidance on the manner in which the damages could be calculated in such cases. Rule 20 of the IPD Rules, 2022 is set out below:
xxxxx "20. Damages/Account of profits:A party seeking damages/account of profits, shall give a reasonable estimate of the amounts claimed and the foundational facts/account statements in respect thereof along with any evidence, documentary and/or oral led by the parties to support such a claim. In addition, the Court shall consider the following factors while determining the quantum of damages:
(i) Lost profits suffered by the injured party;
(ii) Profits earned by the infringing party;
(iii) Quantum of income which the injured party may have earned through royalties/license fees, had the use of the subject IPR been duly authorized;
(iv) The duration of the infringement;
(v) Degree of intention/neglect underlying the infringement;
(vi) Conduct of the infringing party to mitigate the damages being incurred by the injured party;
In the computation of damages, the Court may take the assistance of an expert as provided for under Rule 31 of these Rules.
xxxxx
47. Further, on the aspect of damages, in case reported as, "2019:DHC:2185", tilted as, "Koninlijke Philips and Ors. V/s Page 57 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 Amazestore & Ors.", the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to lay down certain standards for grant of damages in following terms:
xxxxx "41. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the rule of thumb that should be followed while granting damages can be summarized in a chart as under:--
# Degree of malafide conduct Proportionate award
(i) First time innocent infringer Injunction
(ii) First-time knowing infringer Injunction + partial costs
(iii) Repeated knowing infringer which Injunction + costs + partial causes minor impact to the plaintiff damages
(iv) Repeated knowing infringer which Injunction + costs+ causes major impact to the plaintiff compensatory damages
(v) Infringement which was deliberate Injunction + Costs + and calculated Aggravated damages (gangster/scam/mafia) + wilfful (compensatory + additional contempt of Court damages)
42. It is clarified that the above chart is illustrative and is not to be read as a statutory provision. The Courts are free to deviate from the same for good reason."
xxxxx
48. Taking a holistic view of the matter vis-a-vis provisions as laid down under Rule 20 of the IPD Rules, 2022 and applying the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of "Koninlijke Philips" (supra), I am of the considered opinion that grant of damages of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) by defendants to the plaintiff would meet the ends of justice. I order accordingly.
Page 58 of 60CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026
49. Thus, suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under:
(i) A decree of permanent injunction is hereby passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants and the defendants by themselves as also through their individual proprietor/partners, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists and all others acting for and on their behalf are hereby restrained from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising or by any other mode or manner dealing in or using the impugned trademark/label/trade dress/packaging/colour combination/artistic work "UNIQUE PATTA/ / " or any other trade mark/label which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark/label/trade dress/packaging/color combination/artistic work "HARA PATTA/GREEN LEAF/SUPER STRONG POWER / / / Page 59 of 60 CS (Comm.) No.692/2024: Jay Kumar, Trading As: M/s Jay Chemicals Works Vs Veena Yadav, Trading As: Veena Fragrance Encense Stiks & Ors.: DOD: 17.02.2026 / / / " in relation to their impugned goods and business of washing powder, detergent powder, detergent cake, soap etc., and other allied and cognate or from doing any other acts or deeds, thereby infringing plaintiff's registered trademark(s), copyright and passing off their products as that of plaintiff;
(ii) A decree in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) on account of damages sustained by the plaintiff due to loss of sale, reputation and goodwill as well as dilution of plaintiff's trademark is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally;
(iii) Plaintiff is also entitled to cost of the proceedings, which will include actual cost incurred by the plaintiff, cost incurred towards execution of Local Commission as also the counsel's fee which is quantified as Rs.55,000/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Only).
50. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly.
51. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
Dictated & Announced in the (Vinod Yadav) Digitally signed open Court on 17.02.2026 District JudgeVINOD (Commercial by VINOD YADAV Court)-02 North-West/Rohini Courts YADAV 2026.02.17 Date:
17:13:45 +0530 Page 60 of 60