Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

The Suit For Permanent & Mandatory ... vs Unknown on 5 April, 2017

     IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL
             DISTRICT JUDGE-02, WEST, DELHI.

TM No. 04/2017


Gee Dee Educational Society

Versus

Bachpan Uniforms

                            ORDER

05.04.2017

1. The Suit for Permanent & Mandatory Injunction and Damages for Infringement of Copyright, Passing off and Unfair Trade Practice filed by the plaintiff.

2. In brief the facts are that plaintiff is a registered society under Societies Registration Act, 1860 founded in 2003. The constituted Attorney Sh. Yash Dev Gupta is duly authorised to sign and verify the plaint and institute the proceedings on behalf of the plaintiff vide Resolution dated 01.12.2016. The plaintiff society has been running the School in the name and style of K. R. Mangalam, which is known for excellence in education and was awarded International School Award by British Council in 2008 and 2010. Plaintiff always makes innumerable efforts to make the students come with highest quality of education incorporating right blend of personal integrity and the fundamental values. Plaintiff is also lawful proprietor and only user of logo design "K. R. Mangalam" or "K. R. Mangalam World School". It has become a brand since 2003.

3. Plaintiff Society opened its first school in the name of "K. R. Mangalam" at Greater Kailash Part-III, New Delhi in the year 2003 and thereafter two (02) more schools were opened at Delhi NCR, Faridabad and Indraprastha respectively. Plaintiff has been generating revenue in the tune of crores and lastly 2015-2016 it is having Rs. 20,17,913/-.

4. Plaintiff Society using the unique logo and peculiar script and trademark applications have been filed before the Trademark Registry on 03.03.2005 having application No. 1342296 and Trademark K. R. Mangalam World School with Globe Device, on 28.03.2013 having application No. 2503499 and Trademark K. R. Mangalam University (Device), on 28.03.2013 having application No. 2503500 and Trademark K. R. Mangalam University (Label), on 11.04.2016 having application No. 3233112 and Trademark K. R. Mangalam (Wordmark), on 11.04.2016 having application No. 3233114 and Trademark K. R. Mangalam University (Wordmark) and on 14.04.2016 having application No. 3235409 and Trademark K. R. Mangalam University (Device).

5. The defendant is selling low grade uniforms/dress imitating to the plaintiff's trademark and selling at his shop and over internet without authorisation of the plaintiff and without any license in writing. The spurious goods listed on the interent of e-commerce website www.schoolkart.com for sale. The shop of the defendant is located at GG-1/77A, Main Market, PVR Vishal Cinema Road, Vikaspuri, New Delhi. The defendant has been fraudulently using the logo of the plaintiff society with the singular aim, object and purpose of making illegal gains and trading on the enviable reputation and TM No. 04/2017 Page No. 2/5 valuable goodwill of the plaintiff. The trademark of the plaintiff society has been used by the defendant with malafide intention and causes irreparable harm, loss and injury to the plaintiff society.

6. The defendant's impugned logo bearing the impugned mark, getup, layout and arrangement of features are colourable imitation of reproduction of the plaintiff's artwork, design and layout, colour scheme and arrangement of features, which appears to be identical to the plaintiff's uniform. Defendant has entirely copied the artistic works of the plaintiff. There is infringement of copyright and continuous passing off by the defendant by adopting the impugned trademark logo and label.

7. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 07.02.2017, application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Order 39 Rule 7 and Section 151 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner was allowed.

8. Defendant was directed to be served for 20.03.2017. However, on 20.03.2017, plaintiff and defendant have filed joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC as the matter was stated to be settled between them.

9. Accordingly, statements of the parties were recorded on 20.03.2017. It is stated that the parties have settled the matter in terms of the conditions and undertakings state din the joint application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC and it is prayed that the suit may be decreed in terms of application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC.

10. In the application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC, it is stated that the defendant acknowledges the plaintiff to be the proprietor of the trademark K.R. MANGALAM and its logo/ packaging/ artwork under title K.R. MANGALAM in respect of a range of products and as specified in the plaint. The defendant undertakes not to use the trademark K.R. MANGALAM and its logo and impugned label/ packing/ artwork thereof in any manner and in the form and script as shown in the plaint or any other script or any mark which may be identical and/ or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark K.R. MANGALAM and its logo and label/ packaging/ artwork thereof in respect of clothing or any allied products or services and also undertake not to do any other thing as would lead to passing off of the plaintiff's trademark and infringement of copyright or to passing off of his goods or business as and for those of the plaintiff.

11. It is stated that the defendant undertakes not to manufacture, sell or offer for sale, advertise or deal in clothing or allied products or services in the packaging as filed in the present suit depicting the mark/ artwork K.R. MANGALAM and its logo and other similar/ identical artistic features and not to use any other artistic work or label as may be a colourable or slavish imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiff's label/ packaging/artwork bearing the mark K.R. MANGALAM and its logo.

12. It is further stated that the defendant does not have in his possession any labels, stationery, blocks, dies, packaging material, cylinders, finished and unfinished products under the mark K.R. MANGALAM and its logo and label/ packaging/ TM No. 04/2017 Page No. 4/5 artwork thereof as the defendant ha snot abandoned the use of mark/ artwork K.R. MANGALAM and its logo. The parties further agree that the defendant shall under the supervision of the plaintiff, completely destroy entire material/ inventory seized by the Local Commissioner on 25th March, 2017 and released on superdari.

13. It is further stated that the undertakings have been given by Sh. Satinder Singh, defendant who is awre about the suit proceedings and is authorized and competent to enter into this compromise with the plaintiff. It is stated that in view of the undertakings tendered by the defendant, the plaintiff forgoes its claim for rendition of accounts of profits and costs in these proceedings. It is prayed that in view of the compromise a decree in terms of prayers A (I to

iv) and B of the plaint may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

14. I have gone through the statements of the parties and the material on record including application under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. In view of the same, the suit of the plaintiff is disposed of as compromised. Decree sheet be prepared in terms of the undertakings and conditions contained in application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC.

15. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in the open court today the 5th April, 2017 (Sanjay Kumar) ADJ-02,West/Delhi 05.04.2017 TM No. 04/2017 Page No. 5/5