Delhi District Court
J.R. Rice India P. Ltd vs Alka Himagar P. Ltd on 19 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SOOD,
DJ-01 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
TM No. 1095/2016
CNR No: DLCT- 01-004900-2016
J.R. RICE INDIA PVT. LTD.
5593-94, Lahori Gate
Naya Bazar,
DELHI - 110006 .....PLAINTIFF No 1
GYAN PRAKASH SAHU
Proprietor
M/s. SRI KRISHNA RICE MILL
K-52, 4th Floor, Kalptaru Apartment,
Jalan Road (Cart Sarai Road)
Upper Bazar,
RANCHI-834001(JHARKHAND) .....PLAINTIFF No 2
VERSUS
ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD.
Through its Director
Mr Sheo Kumar Singh
Registered office: Singh Manison,
RANCHI-834005(JHARKHAND) .....DEFENDANT No 1
M/s. RASHMI RICE MILL
Mukendganj,
Hazaribagh,
JHARKHAND .....DEFENDANT No 2
TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 1/33
Date of Institution : 19.02.2016
Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 16.04.2024
Date of Decision : 19.04.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trade mark, dilution, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts etc. against the defendants on the basis of the following pleadings inter-alia contained in the Plaint:
i. That the plaintiff No. 1 is an Indian Company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its Registered Office at: 5593-94, Lahori Gate, Main Road, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006. Mr. Deepak Jain, Director of the plaintiff is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. He has been authorized by resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the plaintiff No. 1 and is competent and authorized to sign, verify and file the plaint and to institute the present suit for and on behalf of the plaintiff. A copy resolution is filed herewith. ii. That the plaintiff No. 2 is a licensee of plaintiff for Rice under the trademark BABA. A copy of License agreement between the plaintiff No. 1 and plaintiff No. 2 is filed herewith. Mr. Manish Sahu is constituted attorney of the plaintiff no. 2. He is also conversant with the facts of the case and is competent to sign, verify and file the suit TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 2/33 on behalf of plaintiff no. 2. A power of attorney in his favour is filed herewith.
iii. That the plaintiff no. 1 is engaged in the well-known and well-
established business of processing and marketing inter-alia of rice for the past several years. Plaintiff no. 2 is also engaged in the same business of processing and marketing inter-alia of Rice for the past several years.
iv. That the plaintiff no. 1 is true owner and lawful proprietor of the trademark BABA in respect of the said goods. In the year 1987 the plaintiff's predecessor firm JIWAN RAM & SONS, 3946, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006 honestly and bonafidely adopted trademark BABA for Rice knowing well that there was no such or similar trademark in use and/or existence in respect of the said goods. The said trademark BABA was put to commercial use in the year 1987 and product was launched in the market. An application for registration of trademark BABA was filed on 18.12.1992 by the said predecessor under no. 586992. The said application was examined and in due course advertised in the Trade Marks Journal No. 1219 dt. 16.03.2000 by the Registrar inviting public objection/opposition, if any. M/s Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. filed notice of opposition to the same. The notice of opposition was deemed abandoned as the said opponent filed to file any evidence in support of opposition for a long period of 2 years and 9 months. An order dt. 6 th April, 2004 was passed by the Registrar. Registration certificate was issued on 04.05.2005. The said registration is valid, subsisting and effective till date.TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 3/33
v. That the plaintiff no. 1's said trademark was used by its predecessor firm itself and by its family/sister concern continuously and extensively among the public and trade. The said JIWAN RAM & sons (Prop. Mukesh Chand Jain) assigned all rights, titles and interests in the said trademark BABA to the plaintiff No. 1 herein by Deed of Assignment dt. 20.04.2013. The plaintiff no. 1 has filed application to bring its name on record as proprietor of the trademark BABA to the Registrar of Trade Marks. Under the law plaintiff no. 1 is deemed proprietor of the trademark from the date of assignment. The plaintiff no. 1 is filing all the relevant documents to support the above facts. The expression plaintiff no. 1 herein, wherever the context requires, be read to mean and include the aforesaid predecessors and its family/sister concern.
vi. That the plaintiff no.2 has entered into a license agreement with plaintiff no. 1 to use the trademark BABA in four eastern states namely, Jharkhand, Orissa, Bihar and West Bengal. The plaintiff no. 1 has agreed under the license agreement that the plaintiff no. 2 will use the trademark BABA in said 04 eastern states.
vii. That the plaintiff no.1 has established a good trade under the said trademark "BABA" over the past several years and carried out extensive commercial activities under the same. Plaintiff no. 1 furnishes below the few years sales of its goods:
SALES FIGURES OF JIWAN RAM & SONS PERIOD SALES (In Rs.) 1990-1991 5,90,84,864.92 1991-1992 9,20,07,990.65 TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 4/33 1992-1993 4,41,96,149.00 1993-1994 6,51,93,719.30 1994-1995 13,68,19,896.35 1995-1996 23,62,91,556.73 1996-1997 30,07,22,204.82 1997-1998 55,98,730.30 1998-1999 36,17,41,326.82 1999-2000 44,34,44,009.70 2000-2001 41,29,10,244.73 2001-2002 33,56,02,450.52 2002-2003 48,24,82,670.63 2003-2004 48,21,21,348.41 2004-2005 11,74,88,508.17 SALES FIGURES OF NAV DURGA RICE TRADERS (Family/sister concern of predecessor of plaintiff no. 1) Period Sales (in Rs.) 2005-2006 91,35,691.42 2006-2007 5,80,57,213.12 2007-2008 1,63,71,343.14 viii The above sales figures have been obtained by plaintiff from the books of the accounts maintained in ordinary course of business by the said firms and the same are true and correct. The plaintiff vouchsafes the correctness of the said figures. The sales are total sales figures and include the sale of Rice under the trademark BABA.TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 5/33
ix. That the plaintiff has also established a good trade under the said trademark "BABA" and carried out extensive commercial activities under the same. Plaintiff furnishes below the few years sales figures of its goods inducing the trademark BABA.
SALES FIGURES OF PLAINTIFF
PERIOD SALES (In Rs.)
2009-2010 1,08,71,65,371
2010-2011 1,14,88,89,145
2011-2012 1,75,47,26,872
2012-2013 2,42,86,20,608
2013-2014 16,79,10,846
2014-2015 18,35,21,070
x. The above sales figures have been obtained by plaintiff from the books
of the accounts maintained in ordinary course of his business and the same are true and correct. The plaintiff vouchsafes the correctness of the said figures. The said sales figures are total sales figures and include the sale of Rice under the Trademark BABA.
xi. Thus, the plaintiff no. 1 has used the trademark BABA ever since the year 1987 and has sold huge quantities of rice bearing the same to the public and trade. The plaintiff is filing herewith copies of representative invoices establishing the aforesaid sales.
xii. That the plaintiff no. 1 has also taken steps and carried out trade promotion activities by advertisement of the said trademark BABA by advertising in Trade related directories, magazines, newspapers and distributing gift articles including key chains, pens, slip pads, bags and other novelties from time to time. Available documents are being filed TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 6/33 herewith. The plaintiff no. 1 claims and is the prior adopter and prior user of the trademark BABA.
xiii. That on account of long, continuous and extensive use coupled with the efforts to popularize and sales promotion propaganda and also by virtue of superior quality of the goods provided by the plaintiff no. 1, the said trademark BABA has come to be exclusively identified and associated with plaintiff no. 1 among the public and trade and has acquired enviable goodwill and impeccable trade reputation among the public and trade. The goods (Rice) under the said trademark BABA connote and denote to be the goods of plaintiff no. 1 and none-else to the public and trade. The said trademark is inherently distinctive of goods and business of plaintiff no. 1. The use of trademark BABA by the plaintiff no. 2 also ensue to the benefit of plaintiff no.1 and adds to the goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the trademark BABA of plaintiff no.1 xiv In view of the above facts and circumstances, the plaintiff no. 1 have legal, vested, statutory and common law right to the exclusive use of the said trademark "BABA" in respect of Rice among the public and trade. The plaintiff's right also includes right to restrain use and/or registration of a deceptively similar trademark under the law. xv. That the plaintiffs recently filed a suit bearing no. CS(OS) 2459/2015 titled J.R Rice india Pvt. Ltd & Anr Vs Shree Shakambari Rice Mills Pvt & Anr before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein by oder dt. 17.08.2015 the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass an ad interim ex-parte injunction against the unlawful use of mark "Blue BABA" by the Defendants therein, also based in Ranchi. A copy of the said order is annexed herewith.TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 7/33
xvi. That the plaintiff also filed a suit bearing n. CS (OS) 2669/2015 titled as J.R. Rice ltd. & ANR. Vs. Ma Diwri Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd., before the Hon'ble High Court Wherein by order dt. 03.09.2015 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Najmi Waziri, Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to pass an ad interim ex-parte injunction against the unlawful use of mark "Bhole BABA" by the defendant therein, also based in Ranchi.
ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES OF DEFENDANTS
2. That the defendant no.1 appears to be an Indian company incorporated under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956.
3. That the defendant no. 2 appears to be an associate of defendant no. 1. On the bags containing rice under the trademark Sai BABA the name of defendant no.2 appears. But, plaintiff no. 1 claims to be using the said trademark. It is verily stated that the exact constitution of the defendant no. 2 is not known to the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2 is called upon to discover on record its true and exact constitution. The plaintiff craves leave, amend, and alter the same on the discovery by the defendant no. 2.
4. That it has recently come to the notice of the plaintiffs that defendants has recently started manufacturing and marketing rice under trademark bearing registered trademark BABA of Plaintiff no. 1 with a prefix "Sai", with the world BABA being the main focus of such trademark. The defendant's intention is crystal clear on its product packing itself when it highlights and emphasized the word BABA, with prefix "Sai" appearing in much less prominence. Such use of trademark "Sai BABA" by the defendants is in TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 8/33 clear and flagrant violation of plaintiff's rights and amounts to infringement of registered trademark BABA of the plaintiff no.1. The use of the said infringing mark for same product is a clear and direct indication that the defendants have maliciously plotted to piggy ride on the tremendous name and reputation acquired by the plaintiff no.1.
5. That the plaintiff no.1 on becoming aware of the unethical and illegal activities of the defendants, had issued a Cease and Desist notice dt. 14.09.2015 to the defendants by registered post. The said notice was duly served to the defendants and acknowledged by the defendant. Copies of cease & desist notice along with acknowledgement cards are filed herewith.
6. That the defendant no. 1 instead of complying with the requirements of plaintiff as raised in the cease and desist notice or replying to the same filed a suit against the plaintiffs in the court of Principal Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. Notice in the suit has been served on the plaintiffs who have filed written statement and an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The proceedings are pending. The defendants herein have preferred the aforesaid suit as a Counter Blast to the Cease & Desist Notice sent to them by the plaintiff no. 1 herein for unlawful use of the plaintiff no. 1's registered trademark BABA.
7. That the said suit is not a suit for infringement or passing off and the defendant no. 1 herein who filed the suit did not claim that plaintiff have infringed their right or plaintiffs are passing off their goods. The said suit is a suit for declaration per se without any consequential relief being asked and is even otherwise not maintainable and ought to be dismissed and is TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 9/33 liable to be dismissed in due course for which plaintiff's application has filed in that court. At best the said suit filed in Ranchi by the defendant no. 1 is a suit alleging that the cease and desist notice issued by plaintiff is not justifiable or is groundless or not sustainable in law. Such a suit has been contemplated under section 142 (1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1992 where a person can go to court and claim that the notice or threat issued is groundless or not justifiable and can also claim consequential relief of injunction which the defendants herein have not claimed in the said suit.
8. That filing such suit does not in any manner affect the right of plaintiffs to file suit for infringement against the defendants. Plaintiff's right to approach this Hon'ble Court has been left unfettered by law. In fact such right is a vested right. Right to approach court of law is constitutional right. On the other hand by Section 142 (2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 it has been provided that if the plaintiffs prosecute remedy of infringement by approaching this Hon'ble Court then the provision of Section 142 (1) will be inapplicable. In such situation in the event of filing of the present suit by the plaintiffs the suit filed by the defendant no. 1 at Ranchi would be rendered infructuous. Plaintiffs would make further submissions on this before this Hon'ble Court. A copy of the pleadings and documents filed by the parties in Ranchi suit are filed herewith.
9. That the plaintiffs have not consented to the use of infringing trademark Sai BABA by the defendants. The use of the said trademark BABA by defendant with a prefix "Sai" amounts to a direct infringement of plaintiff's said registered and reputed trademark under the provisions of the TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 10/33 Trade Marks Act 1999. The use of the said mark Sai BABA by the defendant is illegal, unauthorized and unjustified.
10. That the defendants are well aware of the plaintiff no. 1's well known, reputed, and prior registered trademark "BABA" and plaintiff no. 1's has rights in the same and has with dishonest and malafide intention adopted the aforementioned deceptively similar trademark "Sai BABA". The said trademark adopted and used by the defendants is deceptively and confusingly similar to plaintiffs trademark BABA for all practical purpose. Such deceptive similarity is good enough for gaining the advantage on the goodwill and reputation of the said trademark of the plaintiff and also misleading the general public at large. In such circumstances the confusion may arise in the markets among the consumers to the effect that effect that defendants and plaintiffs are in some way connected for the impugned goods. In view of the above, the adoption and use of the said trademark "Sai BABA" on the part of the defendants is in clear and flagrant violation of the plaintiff's legal, vested, common law and statutory rights and amounts to infringement of the registered trademark of plaintiff No. 1 "BABA" and results in passing off the goods and business of the defendants as and for those of the plaintiffs or connected with the plaintiffs in one or the other manner. With the amount of emphasis and focus that is being put on the word BABA, the consumers are certain to be misled and misdirected as they associate the said mark with the plaintiff.
11. That the use of the impugned trademark 'Sai BABA" by the defendants of Rice of inferior quality has already tarnished and /or blurred the reputation of the plaintiff no 1's well known reputed and registered trademark BABA TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 11/33 and is further likely to dilute the name, fame and image of the trademark of the plaintiff. That the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff in the month of September 2015 when the plaintiffs learnt about the defendant use of the impugned trademark "Sai BABA" upon which cease and desist notice was issued to the defendant on 14.09.2015 and the cause of action is continuing since the defendants are infringing the trademark of plaintiff no 1 who are also passing off their goods and business as the goods and business of the plaintiff or connected with the plaintiff.
12. The plaintiff file the present suit and prayed for following reliefs:
(i) For perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, dealers, distributors, stockists, representative and all other persons on their behalf from infringing registered trademark "BABA" of the plaintiff no 1 by manufacturing, processing, getting manufactured/processed, marketing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, exhibiting or otherwise dealing in RICE or any other cogent or allied goods or goods of same description under the trademark "Sai BABA" or any other trademark which may be identical and/or deceptively similar to the registered trademark "BABA" of the plaintiff no 1;
(ii) For perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, dealers, distributors, stockists, representative and all other persons on their behalf from passing off its goods RICE and other cognate and allied goods as and for the goods of the plaintiff by using the trademark "BABA" or any other deceptively similar trademark;
(iii) For delivery upon affidavit by the defendants to the plaintiffs of all the offending, infringing, counterfeiting labels, poly bags, stickers, pouches & packets finished or semi finished goods such as RICE etc or any other cognate and allied goods or any other incriminating material bearing the trademark TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 12/33 "Sai BABA" under the possession and/or control of the defendants for destruction and/or erasure purposes;
(iv) For damages to the tune of Rs 5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs only)
(v) For rendition of accounts of defendants for profits earned by it on the sales of RICE or any other cognate or allied goods or goods of same description under the impugned trademark Sai BABA and a decree for the amount so found due on the basis of sales made during the past till the order/decree of injunction;
(vi) For costs of the proceedings;
(vii) For such other or further relief(s), as to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
SERVICE OF THE DEFENDANTS AND WRITTEN STATEMENT
13. Pursuant of issuance of summons proxy Counsel for the defendant has filed power of attorney for both the defendants and on 30.08.2016 Ld Counsel for defendants has moved an application u/o VIII Rule 1, u/s 148 & 151 CPC and the defendants were proceeded ex-parte on 15.10.2016. On 19.01.2017 an application u/o IX Rule 7 & u/s 151 CPC was moved for setting aside the order dt 15.10.2016 and the said application was allowed on 10.04.2017. Since despite repeated calls, none has appeared on behalf of the defendants and the defendants were again proceeded Ex-parte vide order dt 04.07.2019 and the matter was fixed for ex parte PE. The defendants have not filed their written statement and have not contested the case.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
14. The plaintiff led its ex-parte evidence on 18.05.2022.
TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 13/3315. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff got examined one of the directors of the plaintiff no 1 namely Sh. Deepak Jain as PW-1, who tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. PW1/A reiterating the contents of the plaint which are not reproduced here for the sake of brevity. In his testimony the PW-1 relied upon and proved the following documents:-
1) Ex. PW 1/1 (OSR) is the copy of memorandum and Articles of Association with incorporation certificate.
2) Ex PW 1/ 2 (OSR) is the copy of board resolution.
3) Ex PW 1/ 3 (colly) (OSR) are the copies of retail invoices.
4) Ex PW 1/ 4 (colly) (OSR) are the invoices of sister concern of plaintiff no
1.
5) Ex PW 1/ 5 (colly) (OSR) are the retail invoices of plaintiff no 1.
6) Ex PW 1/ 6 (OSR) is the Trademark Registration Certificate.
7) Ex PW 1/ 7 (OSR) (colly) are the deed of assignment and TM 23.
8) MARK A (Colly) are the advertisements of plaintiff. (the Ex PW 1/8 are the advertisements of which originals are not ascertainable)
9) Ex PW 1/ 9 (OSR) is the license agreement between plaintiff no 1 & plaintiff no 2.
10) Ex PW 1/ 10 is the packaging of plaintiff no 1.
11) Ex PW 1/ 11 is the packaging of defendant.
12) Mark B is the defendants application.
13) Mark C is the status of defendants application.
14) Mark D is the cease and desist notice issued by plaintiff.
15) Mark E is the copy of suit filed by defendant in the court of Principal Judge Ranchi.
TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 14/3316) Mark F is the copy of WS and application u/o 7 Rule 11 CPC filed by plaintiff in the defendant suit.
17) Ex PW 1/ 17 (colly) are the certified copies of various orders passed by court.
16. Thereafter, the ex-parte PE was closed vide order dated 12.01.2023 consequent upon the statement of the Ld Counsel for the plaintiff.
ARGUMENTS AND CONCLUSION
17. Final arguments were duly advanced by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
18. I have duly considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and have perused the pleading, documents and the evidence on record carefully.
19. Before proceeding to decide the present matter it is appropriate to refer to the relevant sections of law pertaining to the registration and assignment of the trademark and also its infringement and passing off. Section 2 (i) (w) of the Trademarks Act 1999 defines the registered trademark as a trademark which is actually on the register and remaining in force. Assignment in terms of Section (i) (b) of the Trademarks Act 1999 means assessment in writing by act of the parties concerned.
20. Section 37 of the Trademarks Act 1999 empowers the person for the time being entered in the register as proprietor of the trademark to assign the trademark to any other person and to give receipts for any consideration for such assignment.
TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 15/3321. In terms of Section 38 of the Trademarks Act 1999, a registered trademark subject to the restrictions contained in Section 40 to 44 of the Trademarks Act 1999 is assignable and transmissible whether with or without the goodwill of the business concerned and in respect either of all the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered or of some only of those goods or services. Section 45 (1) of the Trademarks Act 1999 further prescribes that where a person becomes entitled by assignment to a registered trademark his title has to be registered with the Registrar of the trademark in respect of the goods or services in respect of which the assignment takes effect and upon application the particulars of the assignment has to be entered on the register of the trademarks.
22. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that in terms of Section 38 of the Trademarks Act 1999 a trademark is a tradeable property and can be assigned in favour of an assignee and the assignment in terms of Section 45 of the Trademarks Act 1999 is complete on the execution of the assignment deed and the name of the assignee having been entered on the register of the trademark.
23. Further Section 31 (1) of the Trademarks Act 1999 prescribes that in all legal proceedings relating to a trademark registered under the act, the original registration of the trademark and of all subsequent assignments of the trademark shall be prime facie evidence of the validity thereof. Upon an assignment being made, the assignee steps into the shoes of the registered proprietor thereof and becomes entitled to all the rights of the TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 16/33 registered proprietor including the right to maintain an action against infringement and passing off thereto.
24. The rights conferred by registration is governed by Section 28 of the Trademarks Act 1999 which reads as follows:
"28. Rights conferred by registration.--(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the registration of a trade mark shall, if valid, give to the registered proprietor of the trade mark the exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and to obtain relief in respect of infringement of the trade mark in the manner provided by this Act.
(2) The exclusive right to the use of a trade mark given under sub-section (1) shall be subject to any conditions and limitations to which the registration is subject.
(3) Where two or more persons are registered proprietors of trade marks, which are identical with or nearly resemble each other, the exclusive right to the use of any of those trade marks shall not (except so far as their respective rights are subject to any conditions or limitations entered on the register) be deemed to have been acquired by any one of those persons as against any other of those persons merely by registration of the trade marks but each of those persons has otherwise the same rights as against other persons (not being registered users using by way of permitted use) as he would have if he were the sole registered proprietor. "
25. The infringement of the trademark is governed by Section 29 of the Trademarks Act 1999 which reads as follows:
"Infringement of registered trade marks.--(1) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark.
(2) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of--
(a) its identity with the registered trademark and the similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trademark; or TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 17/33
(b) its similarity to the registered trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark; or
(c) its identity with the registered trade mark and the identity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark, is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark.
(3) In any case falling under clause (c) of sub-section (2), the court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public.
(4) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which
--
(a) is identical with or similar to the registered trade mark; and
(b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and
(c) the registered trade mark has a reputation in India and the use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark.
(5) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person if he uses such registered trade mark, as his trade name or part of his trade name, or name of his business concern or part of the name, of his business concern dealing in goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person uses a registered mark, if, in particular, he--
(a) affixes it to goods or the packaging thereof;
(b) offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them on the market, or stocks them for those purposes under the registered trade mark, or offers or supplies services under the registered trade mark;
(c) imports or exports goods under the mark; or
(d) uses the registered trade mark on business papers or in advertising.
(7) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who applies such registered trade mark to a material intended to be used for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper, or for advertising goods or services, provided such person, when he applied the mark, knew or had reason to believe that the application of the mark was not duly authorised by the proprietor or a licensee.
(8) A registered trade mark is infringed by any advertising of that trade mark if such advertising
(a) takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; or
(b) is detrimental to its distinctive character; or
(c) is against the reputation of the trade mark.TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 18/33
(9) Where the distinctive elements of a registered trade mark consist of or include words, the trade mark may be infringed by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual representation and reference in this section to the use of a mark shall be construed accordingly."
Thus Sub -section (1) of Section 29 of the said Act provides that a registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark in relation to goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark. Subsection (2) of Section 29 of the said Act provides that a registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of its identity with the registered trade mark and the similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark; or its similarity to the registered trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark; or its identity with the registered trade mark and the identity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark, is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark. Sub section (3) of Section 29 of the said Act is of vital importance. It provides that in any case falling under clause (c) of subsection (2) of Section 29 of the said Act, the court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public.
A perusal of subsection (2) of Section 29 of the said Act would reveal that a registered trade mark would be infringed by a person, who not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which because of the three eventualities mentioned in clauses
(a), (b) and (c), is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an association with the TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 19/33 registered trade mark. The first eventuality covered by clause
(a) being its identity with the registered trade mark and the similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark. The second one covered by clause (b) being its similarity to the registered trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark. The third eventuality stipulated in clause (c) would be its identity with the registered trade mark and the identity of the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark.
It is, however, pertinent to note that by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section 29 of the said Act, the legislative intent insofar as the eventuality contained in clause (c) is concerned, is clear. Subsection (3) of Section 29 of the said Act provides that in any case falling under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the said Act, the Court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public.
Subsection (4) of Section 29 of the said Act provides that a registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which is identical with or similar to the registered trade mark; and is used in relation to goods or services which are not similar to those for which the trade mark is registered; and the registered trade mark has a reputation in India and the use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark.
Subsection (5) of Section 29 of the said Act provides that a registered trade mark is infringed by a person if he uses such registered trade mark, as his trade name or part of his trade name, or name of his business concern or part of the name, of his business concern dealing in goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered.
Subsection (6) of Section 29 of the said Act provides that for the purposes of this section, a person uses a registered mark, if, TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 20/33 in particular, he affixes it to goods or the packaging thereof; offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them on the market, or stocks them for those purposes under the registered trade mark, or offers or supplies services under the registered trade mark; imports or exports goods under the mark; or uses the registered trade mark on business papers or in advertising.
Subsection (7) of Section 29 of the said Act provides that a registered trade mark is infringed by a person who applies such registered trade mark to a material intended to be used for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper, or for advertising goods or services, provided such person, when he applied the mark, knew or had reason to believe that the application of the mark was not duly authorized by the proprietor or a licensee.
Subsection (8) of Section 29 of the said Act provides that a registered trade mark is infringed by any advertising of that trade mark if such advertising takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters; or is detrimental to its distinctive character; or is against the reputation of the trade mark.
Subsection (9) of Section 29 of the said Act provides that where the distinctive elements of a registered trade mark consist of or include words, the trade mark may be infringed by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual representation and reference in this section to the use of a mark shall be construed accordingly.
Section 30 of the said Act deals with the limits on effect of registered trade mark. Section 30 of the said Act, which would also be of vital importance in the present case, reads thus: "30. Limits on effect of registered trade mark.--
(1) Nothing in Section 29 shall be construed as preventing the use of a registered trade mark by any person for the purposes of identifying goods or services as those of the proprietor provided the use--
TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 21/33(a) is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters, and
(b) is not such as to take unfair advantage of or be detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the trade mark.
(2) A registered trade mark is not infringed where--
(a) the use in relation to goods or services indicates the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin, the time of production of goods or of rendering of services or other characteristics of goods or services;
(b) a trade mark is registered subject to any conditions or limitations, the use of the trade mark in any manner in relation to goods to be sold or otherwise traded in, in any place, or in relation to goods to be exported to any market or in relation to services for use or available or acceptance in any place or country outside India or in any other circumstances, to which, having regard to those conditions or limitations, the registration does not extend;
(c) the use by a person of a trade mark--
(i) in relation to goods connected in the course of trade with the proprietor or a registered user of the trade mark if, as to those goods or a bulk or which they form part, the registered proprietor or the registered user conforming to the permitted use has applied the trade mark and has not subsequently removed or obliterated it, or has at any time expressly or impliedly consented to the use of the trade mark; or
(ii) in relation to services to which the proprietor of such mark or of a registered user conforming to the permitted use has applied the mark, where the purpose and effect of the use of the mark is to indicate, in accordance with the fact, that those services have been performed by the proprietor or a registered user of the mark;
(d) the use of a trade mark by a person in relation to goods adapted to form part of, or to be accessory to, other goods or services in relation to which the trade mark has been used without infringement of the right given by registration under this Act or might for the time being be so used, if the use of the trade mark is reasonably necessary in order to indicate that the goods or services are so adapted, and neither the purpose nor TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 22/33 the effect of the use of the trade mark is to indicate, otherwise than in accordance with the fact, a connection in the course of trade between any person and the goods or services, as the case may be;
(e) the use of a registered trade mark, being one of two or more trade marks registered under this Act which are identical or nearly resemble each other, in exercise of the right to the use of that trade mark given by registration under this Act. (3) Where the goods bearing a registered trade mark are lawfully acquired by a person, the sale of the goods in the market or otherwise dealing in those goods by that person or by a person claiming under or through him is not infringement of a trade by reason only of*--
(a) the registered trade mark having been assigned by the registered proprietor to some other person, after the acquisition of those goods; or
(b) the goods having been put on the market under the registered trade mark by the proprietor or with his consent. (4) Subsection (3) shall not apply where there exists legitimate reasons for the proprietor to oppose further dealings in the goods in particular, where the condition of the goods, has been changed or impaired after they have been put on the market."
Section 31 of the said Act is also relevant in the present case, which reads thus:
"31. Registration to be prima facie evidence of validity.--(1) In all legal proceedings relating to a trade mark registered under this Act (including applications under Section 57), the original registration of the trade mark and of all subsequent assignments and transmissions of the trade mark shall be prima facie evidence of the validity thereof.
(2) In all legal proceedings, as aforesaid a registered trade mark shall not be held to be invalid on the ground that it was not a registrable trade mark under Section 9 except upon evidence of distinctiveness and that such evidence was not submitted to the Registrar before registration, if it is proved that the trade mark had been so used by the registered TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 23/33 proprietor or his predecessor in title as to have become distinctive at the date of registration."
It could thus be seen that in all legal proceedings relating to trade mark registered under the said Act, the original registration of the trade mark and of all subsequent assignments and transmissions of the trade mark shall be prima facie evidence of the validity thereof.
The legislative scheme is clear that when the mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and the goods or services covered are similar to the ones covered by such registered trade mark, it may be necessary to prove that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public, or which is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark. Similarly, when the trade mark of the plaintiff is similar to the registered trade mark of the defendant and the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark are identical or similar to the goods or services covered by such registered trade mark, it may again be necessary to establish that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public. However, when the trade mark of the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and that the goods or services of the defendant are identical with the goods or services covered by registered trade mark, the Court shall presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public."
26. The onus to prove its case was upon the plaintiff as it is a settled proposition of law that the case of the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs irrespective of the defence of the defendant.
27. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff no. 1 is the assignee of the trademark BABA in question by virtue of deed of assignment dt 20.04.2013 Ex PW 1/7(OSR) having been executed in its favour by M/s Jiwan Ram & TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 24/33 Sons who were the registered proprietor of the said trademark and had been using the same since the year 1987. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's predecessor firm JIWAN RAM & SONS, 3946, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006 honestly and bonafidely adopted trademark BABA for Rice knowing well that there was no such or similar trademark in use and/or existence in respect of the said goods and the said trademark BABA was put to commercial use in the year 1987. It is further stated that an application for registration of trademark BABA was filed on 18.12.1992 by the said predecessor under No. 586992 and registration certificate was issued on 04.05.2005. It is further stated that plaintiff no. 1's trademark was used by its predecessor firm itself and which firm assigned all rights, titles and interests in the said trademark BABA to the plaintiff No. 1 by Deed of Assignment dt. 20.04.2013.
28. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff has placed on record documents to show that the plaintiff company is the assignee of the trademark BABA which registration in respect of the plaintiffs mark 'BABA' was valid and subsisting in favour of the plaintiff in terms of Ex PW 1/6 and Ex PW 1/7 and as such the plaintiff is the deemed proprietor of the trademark from the date of its assignment. The plaintiff has also placed on record the packaging of the products of the plaintiff company (i.e. Ex PW 1/10) as well as the photographs of the packaging of the defendant company (i.e. Ex PW1/11).
29. Thus, by placing the said documents on record, plaintiff has duly proved and discharged his burden of proof placed upon him to prove that the plaintiff became the registered owner of the trademark BABA who had TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 25/33 entered into a license agreement with plaintiff no 2 thereby permitting plaintiff no 2 to use the trademark BABA in 4 Eastern States namely Jharkhand, Orrisa, Bihar & West Bengal.
30. The plaintiff by placing on record the copies of retail/sale invoices of plaintiff no 1 and copies of advertisement cuttings of plaintiff no 1 has also proved on record the license agreement dt 09.05.2015 executed between it and plaintiff no 2 together with the copies of retail/sale invoices of plaintiff no 2 and copies of advertisement cuttings of plaintiff no 2. (Ex PW 1/3, Ex PW 1/ 4 , Ex PW 1/ 5, Ex PW 1/6 Ex PW 1/9 & Ex PW 1/10) has proved that fact that the trademark have been adopted by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff since in the year 1992 and the said trademark BABA is extensively advertised and enjoys vast goodwill. The plaintiff has also proved that fact that the defendant has adopted the trademark Sai BABA having BABA as the dominant part of the trademark by placing on record the photograph of the packaging of the defendant (Ex PW 1/11) containing the trademark Sai BABA.
31. Having heard the arguments and after going through the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the plaintiff, and in view of the fact that defendant had not contested the case and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dt 04.07.2019 and had also not cross examine PW-1 therefore it can be safely held that the testimony of PW-1 has remained unrebutted, unblemished and uncontroverted. Thus, this Court has no ground to disbelieve the testimony of the PW-1. Also, by placing on record various documents maintained by TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 26/33 the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been able to prove its case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities.
32. The facts noted above make out a clear case of infringement of registered trademark by the defendants of their products as that of the plaintiff who had affixed a prefix "Sai" with the word "BABA" which is the dominant feature of the trademark of the plaintiff. A perusal of the trade dress of the plaintiff (Ex PW 1/ 10) indicates that the trademark of the plaintiff i.e. BABA is written in Blue in a yellow background with the picture of a saint and the defendants have as per Ex. PW1/11 have in very insignificant terms have affixed the prefix "Sai" to the trade mark of the plaintiff no. 1 i.e. BABA and have maintained the same colour pattern i.e. BABA in Capital Letters in Blue Colour with a Yellow background.
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc Vs B Vijaya Sai & Ors, 2022 SCC Online 61 has held that the trademark "Renaissance" as well as "Sai Renaissance" are identical and since the services rendered by the plaintiff and defendant falls in the same class, the case would be covered by Section 29 (2) (c) r/w Section 29 (3) of the Trademarks Act 1999 and the mark adopted by the defendant is an infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff being identical with and deceptively similar.
34. In Parle Products Pvt Ltd vs J P & Company Mysore (1972) 1 SCC 618 it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as follows:
"Two marks, when placed side by side, may exhibit many and various differences, yet that main idea left on the mind by both may be the same. A TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 27/33 person acquainted with the one mark, and not having the two side by side for comparison, might well be deceived, if the goods were allowed to be impressed with the second mark, into a belief that he was dealing with goods which bore the same mark as that with which he was acquainted. It would be too much to expect that persons dealing with trademarked goods and relying as they frequently do upon marks should be able to remember the exact details of eh marks upon the goods with which they are in the habit of dealing. Marks are remembered rather by general impressions or by some significant details then by any photographic recollection of the whole. Moreover, variations in details might well be supposed by customers to have been made by the owners of the trademark they are already acquainted with for reasons of their own.
It is therefore clear that in order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. They should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the designs and if so whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken fro the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him."
35. In Subhash Chander Bansal vs Khadim's and Anr, 2012 192 DLT 520 52 PTC 565 where the plaintiff was selling the footwares under the trademark of KHAZANA and the defendant applied for the trademark Khadim's Sriman KHAZANA (label), Khadim's Girls KHAZANA (label) , Khadim's Srimati KHAZANA, Khadim's Boy KHAZANA (label) The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi after examining the entire conspectus of law held that the mere use of the prefixs KHADIM's would not take the case out of the purview of Section 29 of the Trademark Act irrespective of whether the word KHADIM's is bigger, equal or smaller than the word KHAZANA. There is a strong possibility of customers findings the shoes and boots etc being sold under the trademark KHADIM's KHAZANA in the stores of defendant no 2 and confusing the same with the trademark of the plaintiff on account of use of the word KHAZANA in the trademark of the defendants. Moreover a customer of average intelligence may presume that TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 28/33 it is the product of the plaintiff which is being sold in the stores of the defendants and that is why the word KHAZANA is written on the product or its packaging or the customers may presume that there is some kind of trade connection between the plaintiff and defendant no 2 and that is why the word KHAZANA is being used as a part of trademark of the defendants in respect of the identical products. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi further held that the trademark Khadim's Sriman KHAZANA (label), Khadim's Girls KHAZANA (label), Khadim's Srimati KHAZANA, Khadim's Boy KHAZANA (label) to be deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff and also that since the trademark in question is being used in relation to the goods which are covered by the registered trademark of the plaintiff a case of an infringement u/s 29 (1) of the Trademarks Act is made out. It was further held that even if the trademark of the defendant is assumed to be similar though not deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff, the same would still constitute an infringement within the meaning of Section 29 (2) of the said act since it is being used in respect of same products which are covered by the plaintiffs registered trademark and as such is likely to cause confusion in the minds of the consumers or they may perceive the impugned trademark to be associated with the registered trademark of the plaintiff.
36. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of judgments as stated in the foregoing paras, it can be concluded that the adoption of the trade mark i.e. "Sai BABA" by the defendant and that too in respect of the identical goods constitutes an infringement of the trade mark of the plaintiff. The adoption of "BABA" in prominence with an insignificant prefix "Sai" by the TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 29/33 defendant having the same colour combination is deceptively similar to the registered trade mark of the plaintiff given the fact that the trademark adopted by the defendant contains the broad and essential feature of the trade mark of the plaintiff. The Plaintiff has therefore established the fact the defendant has adopted the mark "Sai BABA" in order to ride over its goodwill and reputation in the market and that defendant has been deliberately causing confusion/deception in mind of the purchasing public at large with respect to the source of goods that are in fact originating from defendant. The plaintiff has thus been able to further prove the fact that the trademark "Sai BABA" is deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiff BABA and that too in respect of the identical goods i.e. rice. In view of above, there is every likelihood of the consumers and prospective purchasers carrying an impression in their mind that goods of defendant originate from plaintiff or that there is some commercial nexus between them, thus resulting in dilution of trademark of plaintiff in their goods. The plaintiff has further been able to prove that the defendant by using the impugned trademark i.e. Sai BABA which at the least is deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff and which deceptively similar trademark is being used in relation to the goods which are covered by the Registered trademark of the plaintiff hence the plaintiff has been able to prove a case of infringement u/s 29 (1) of the Trademarks Act 1999.
37. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff stresses the fact that plaintiff is not only entitled to relief of permanent injunction but also for a decree of damages against defendant towards loss of sales, reputation and goodwill of its trademark caused by his illegal activities who however as recorded vide order dated TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 30/33 16.04.2024 gave up the other reliefs as made in para 34 at Serial No. (ii),
(iii), (v) of the Plaint.
38. As noted above, despite service of summons, defendant elected to stay away from the present proceedings so as to thwart any enquiry into his account for determination of damages. As a result, no inquiry into his accounts could be conducted by this court to pass an order of rendition of accounts of profits and delivery up, so as to compensate the plaintiff for extent of damages suffered by it. But, that alone would not be a deterrent. Merely because defendant has deliberately elected to stay away from the court proceedings, cannot be a ground to permit him to reap the benefits of evading the suit proceedings and its outcome.
39. This court is mindful of the fact that in such a situation where defendant chooses to stay away from court proceedings, he should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of such an evasion. Any view to the contrary would result in a situation where a complaint defendant who appears in court pursuant to summons being issued, participates in proceedings and submits his account books, etc. for assessment of damages, would end up on a worse footing, vis-a-vis a defendant who chooses to conveniently stay away after being served with summons of the suit. That was certainly not the intention of the Stature. Section 135 (1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 provides that relief that may be granted in any suit for infringement of or for passing off includes injunction and at the opinion of the plaintiff, either damages or an account of profits. Plaintiff in the present case has opted for claiming damages and has established beyond doubt that it has suffered damages on TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 31/33 account of the conduct of defendant which is a result of infringement of their trademark and copyright.
40. It is well settled that damages in cases like the present one must be awarded and a defendant, who elects stay away from the court proceedings, should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of staying away from the said proceedings.
41. In view of foregoing, an ex-parte decree is passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant. Defendants, their servants, agents, dealers, distributors, stockists, representative and all other persons on their behalf are restrained from infringing the registered trademark "BABA" of the plaintiff no 1 by manufacturing, processing, getting manufactured/processed, marketing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, exhibiting or otherwise dealing in RICE or any other cogent or allied goods or goods of same description under the trademark "Sai BABA" or any other trademark which may be identical and/or deceptively similar to the registered trademark "BABA" of the plaintiff no 1.
42. Defendant is directed to pay damages to the extent of Rs 50,000/- to the plaintiff. Damages awarded shall be payable, within a period of 6 months from the date of passing of judgment failing which, said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from date of decree, till realization.
43. The plaintiff is also entitled to the costs of the suit.
44. The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed. Decree sheet be prepared after the plaintiff pays the requisite court fees on the damages awarded.
TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 32/3345. File be consigned to record room, after necessary legal formalities.
Pronounced in the open court on (SACHIN SOOD)
on 19th April 2024. DJ- 01 (Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
TM No: 1095/2016 J.R. RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. Vs. ALKA HIMAGAR PVT. LTD. Page No. 33/33