Delhi District Court
Today Tea Limited vs Manoj Garg on 29 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)
NORTH EAST: KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
CS (Comm) 25/2022
CNR No.DLNE01-001082-2022
Today Tea Limited
409-412, 4th Floor,
Roots Tower, Delhi-110092. ....Plaintiff
Vs
Mr. Manoj Garg
S/o Sh. Madhusudan Garg
R/o E-378, 5th Pusta, Near Toll
Tax, Sonia Vihar, Karawal Nagar,
North-East, Delhi-110094. .....Defendant No.1
Manish Tiwari (Director)
Wehindustan Media Private Limited
C-174 F/F, Rect-27, Killa-15/2,
Gali no.4, West Karawal Nagar,
28 Ft. Road, North-East, Delhi-110094. ....Defendant No.2
Saurabh Chandra Shukla (Director)
Wehindustan Media Private Limited
C-174 F/F, Rect-27, Killa-15/2,
Gali no.4, West Karawal Nagar,
28 Ft. Road, North-East, Delhi-110094. ....Defendant No.3
Date of Institution : 13.04.2022
Date of Arguments : 02.07.2025
Date of Judgment : 29.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for permanent/mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from making, uploading, publishing defamatory video & publication, commercial disparagement u/s 29 (8) of Trademark Act, 1999 and CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 1 of 22 damages etc., as filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. In brief, facts of the case as made out in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and Mr. Luxmi Dutt Tignatia, who is Authorized Signatory & Legal Manager of plaintiff company has been duly empowered and competent to sign, verify, depose, institute and conduct the proceedings by virtue of Board Resolution dated 07.01.2022.
3. It is averred that the plaintiff is engaged in the well known and well established business of manufacturing, marketing and sale of Tea, Coffee among other goods falling in Class-30 since the year 1994 under the House mark 'TODAY' and its variants which includes, but not limited to "TODAY TEA, TODAY STAR, TODAY PREMIUM and STAR TEA" and other TODAY formative marks. It is averred that the trade mark TODAY is the house mark as well as trade name of the plaintiff, which has been continuously, extensively, honestly, voluminously, openly and uninterruptedly used by the plaintiff in respect of above mentioned goods. It is stated that plaintiff is the registered owner of various trademark including TODAY TEA, STAR TEA and other TODAY formative marks.
4. It is averred that the plaintiff has also been using various trademark including but not limited to "TODAY STAR TEA" and various other trademarks which are variants of "TODAY" & "STAR" like "TODAY STAR" & CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 2 of 22 "STAR TEA" for the last several years for the goods falling in various classes. It is stated that the plaintiff has filed applications for registration of various trademarks and has also got the registration of the said trademarks from the Trade Mark Registry. It is further stated that the plaintiff had also obtained registration in respect of its distinctive and original artistic work for the title TODAY STAR & TODAY STAR TEA (with device of cup and saucer) under the provisions of Copyright Act, 1957 in both English and Hindi.
5. It is averred that the plaintiff is the prior adopter/user of the aforesaid copyright, trademarks and the goods manufactured and marketed by the plaintiff under the said copyright and trademark on account of its superior quality, dependability, long continuous and extensive use coupled with advertisement and publicity, has acquired and established goodwill and impeccable trade reputation among the public and trade in general. It is stated that the plaintiff has spent, incurred and invested huge & considerable amount of money, labour, skill, time, energy and expertise in establishing their products under the aforesaid trademark in the market and due to such extensive and exclusive use of the trade mark TODAY STAR, STAR TEA and other TODAY & STAR formative trademark alongwith their packaging by the plaintiff, the same has acquired distinct identity to the goods for which it is registered and used, and the validity of said trademark and copyright is now almost beyond challenge.
CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 3 of 226. It is averred that plaintiff has been advertising its said products under the trademarks TODAY STAR, STAR TEA and other formative trademarks packed in the aforementioned distinct packaging having distinctive and original artistic work by way of various mode of advertisement like newspapers, magazines, TV and cables channels advertisement handbills, posters, banners and other advertising media. It is stated that the products under the trademark TODAY STAR, STAR TEA and other formative trademark of the plaintiff in its aforementioned distinctive packaging was introduced for the first time in year 1994 and till the date, same has been sold for a value of more than several crores. It is further stated that the plaintiff has acquired tremendous goodwill and reputation across the nation and also has trans-border reputation for its distinctive trademark, copyright and high quality products.
7. It is case of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 has been selling the products including tea by using trademark, trade dress & artistic work as that of the plaintiff's registered trademark and artistic work of "STAR TEA". It is stated that the defendant no.1 Mr. Manoj Garg appears to be manufacturer, producer & seller of the impugned goods and adopted the trademarks/labels alongwith artistic work/device, packaging material, get up, layout, lettering style, font and colour combination, which is identical/deceptively similar to that of plaintiff's products. The defendant no.2 Mr. Manish Tiwari is the reporter, who conducted & anchored the defamatory interview of defendant no.1 and is also one of the director of CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 4 of 22 Wehindustan Media Private Limited and the defendant no.3 is Wehindustan Media Private Limited i.e. the news channel, which released, published & posted the defamatory video of defendant no.1 with an intention to defame the plaintiff.
8. It is averred that the defendant no.1 was manufacturing, producing & selling the infringing goods including tea falling in Class-30 and also doing his business through their dealers/distributors. It is stated that the plaintiff got information from the market source that the defendant no.1 was doing his business against the interest of plaintiff's business and upon further inquiry made by the plaintiff, it also came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant no.1 has not filed any application with the Trade Mark Registry regarding registration of impugned trademark/label. It is further stated that the defendant no.1 wants to take undue advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff and has malafidely and mischievously adopted similar trademarks bearing the prominent part of the device/label of the plaintiff's trademark TODAY STAR TEA and other formative including the prominent features as depicted on the packaging materials of the plaintiff.
9. It is averred that the defendant no.1 cannot be allowed to adopt and use the impugned trademarks/labels/devices RAJ KORNI STAR TEA with identical/deceptively similar packaging material, get up, layout, lettering style, font and colour combination as to that of the plaintiff because the CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 5 of 22 same contains prominent part of the registered trademark STAR TEA, TODAY STAR TEA and other formative trademarks as well as the copyright of the plaintiff.
10. It is averred that in July, 2021 the plaintiff came to know that defendant no.1 was selling, marketing and manufacturing his goods by using STAR TEA with similar artistic work, packaging material, getup, layout, lettering style, font and colour combination of plaintiffs TODAY STAR TEA. Thereafter, immediately the plaintiff filed a complaint with police station of Sonia Vihar against the defendant no.1 and a raid was conducted by the police officers at the premises of defendant no.1 wherein the tea packages containing yellow and red packaging bearing trademarks/labels 'BEST QUALITY STAR TEA' with the artistic work/logo of saucer and cup and deceptively similar packaging material as that of plaintiff's TODAY STAR TEA were found and confiscated by the police officers and an FIR was also lodged in this regard.
11. It is averred that after some time, plaintiff was shocked to know that on 10.12.2021 a video titled "Today tea ke karan se ek parivaar aatmhatya kar leta" was uploaded on facebook page of defendant no.2 and 3 i.e. Wehindustan News wherein the defendant no.1 was interviewed by defendant no.2. It is stated that the contents of the said interview seems to be orchestrated and has been uploaded and published with an intention to malign the plaintiff's reputation and deviate the judicial proceedings. It is further stated that the defendants have tried to present the CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 6 of 22 defendant no.1 as victim and the plaintiff as some one who has done something illegal or without any authority. It is further stated that the said video has been viewed by 1,26,000 people so far and due to this, the plaintiff has suffered huge loss with respect to its hard earned goodwill/reputation in the market and the sale of plaintiff has also been affected adversely after publication of the impugned video. It is further stated that the prominent feature of the said video during its entire running time is the headline which contains trademark, copyright & packaging of plaintiff's product alongwith the words/sentence i.e. "Kya aap today tea peete hain?" & "Today tea ke karan ek parivaar aatmahatya kar leta".
12. It is averred that in the impugned video, it was also alleged/stated by defendant no.1 that he planned to commit suicide due to the harassment and embarrassment faced by him during the raid and no warrants or documentary evidences were shown to him with respect to the raid. It is stated that defendant no. 2 and 3 attempted to tarnish the goodwill of the plaintiff by impeding the frivolous statements like "qki today tea mota paisa vigyapan k lie deti hai, to ek vyapari mare to mare, dikkat he kya hai, mota paisa to aa he jaata hai". Hence, the present suit.
13. Defendant no.1 contested the present suit by filing written statement while taking preliminary objections that the suit is highly misconceived, misleading and based on false evidences and hence, deserves to be dismissed; that plaintiff has not exhausted the remedy of pre-institution CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 7 of 22 mediation u/s 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands; the plaintiff in collusion and conspiracy with the police, has got conducted a raid on the business premises of defendant no.1 without any substantial grounds and justified reasons for the alleged violation of Trademark Act 1999; that due to the raid, defendant no.1 was under mental pressure and trauma and in this backdrop, he gave said interview to defendant no.2 and 3 so that his plight could be known to public at large as to how his life has been made hell by the plaintiff; that defendant no.1 has not infringed any trademark as that of the plaintiff; that defendant no.1 had already applied for registration of his own trademark with the Trademark Registry vide application dated 16.07.2021 and the Trademark Registry has not reported to defendant no.1 regarding any similar kind of trademark by any other person in India; the defendant no.1 has given an interview to defendant no. 2 and 3 regarding the incident of raid conducted in his business premises on 24.07.2021 by the police without any search warrants, court order or prior notice; the defendant no.1 has fully cooperated with the police during the raid, but still a false FIR no.260/21 under Section 63 of Copyrights Act was registered against defendant no.1 and the defendant no.1 had already filed a Writ Petition Criminal No.2126/2021 before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for quashing the aforesaid FIR.
14. It is submitted that plaintiff got published the said raid in the newspaper Punjab Kesari and Navoday Times on 26.07.2021 only to defame the defendant no.1 in the CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 8 of 22 market. It is further submitted that the said newspaper published that defendant no.1 was selling tea leafs of a reputed company after repacking in the market and the police has recovered 550 kg of packing material and duplicate tea from defendant no.1. It is further submitted that defendant no.1 runs a business of tea packing in his own trade name namely 'Raj Korni the Best Quality Star Tea' in the name and style of M/s Manoj Kirana Store and that he purchased good quality tea leaves from the market and repacked the same in tea packets of 200 gms each as a sample which were to be distributed to different shops.
15. On merits, the contents of plaint have been denied. It is submitted that defendant no.1 is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of the tea in his own brand name of "Rajkorni The Best Quality Star Tea" and the said trade name/trademark/label/artistic work is not similar to as that of plaintiffs trade name or trade mark. It is further submitted that defendant no.1 has not given any interview which contained defamatory material against the plaintiff in any manner. It is further submitted that defendant no.1's trademark do not contain prominent part of the registered trademark of the plaintiff. It is thus submitted that suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
16. Defendant no.2 and 3 also contested the present suit by filing written statement while taking preliminary objections that plaintiff has not exhausted the remedy of pre-institution mediation u/s 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands;
CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 9 of 22the defendant no. 2 is the Director of defendant no.3 and is a journalist by profession; the defendant no.2 runs a digital channel on Facebook and youtube under name and style as Wehindustan News; the defendant no.1 approached the defendant no. 2 with his grievances against plaintiff and defendant no.2 being journalist interviewed defendant no.1 and publishes/telecasted the said interview on his digital channel namely Wehindustan News and he has not doctored the video recording in any manner; the suit of plaintiff is bad in law for mis-joinder & non-joinder of necessary parties; that present suit has not been properly valued by the plaintiff for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction.
17. On merits, the contents of plaint have been denied. It is thus submitted that suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
18. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 06.11.2024:-
1. Whether plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and concealed material facts?
OPD
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of injunction as prayed in para (a) to (c) of prayer clause of the plaint? OPP
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages in the sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, as claimed? OPP
4. Relief.
CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 10 of 2219. In support of its case, plaintiff examined Sh. Ram Babu Verma, AR as PW-1, who tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 has relied upon following documents:-
i) Original Board Resolution authorizing Luxmi Dutt Tignatia authorized signatory of the plaintiff company i.e. Ex.PW1/1.
ii) Copy of screenshots of the impugned video i.e. Ex.PW1/2.
iii) Copy of screenshots of plaintiffs Website i.e. Ex.PW1/3.
iv) Copy of plaintiff's Trade Mark Registration Certificate i.e. Ex.PW1/4.
v) Copy of plaintiff's copyright registration certificate i.e. Ex.PW1/5.
vi) Plaintiff yearly Sales Turnover i.e. Ex.PW1/6.
vii) Copies of plaintiff's sales and tax invoices i.e. Mark Ex.PW1/7 (colly).
viii) Copy of VAT Challan i.e. Mark Ex.PW1/8.
ix) Copies of advertisements of plaintiff's products and their invoices i.e. Mark PW1/9 (colly).
x) Transcript of defamatory video along with CD containing video i.e. Ex.PW1/10.
xi) Copy of FIR filed by the plaintiff against defendant no.1 i.e. Ex.PW1/11.CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 11 of 22
xii) Board Resolution authorizing Sh. Ram Babu Verma authorized signatory of the plaintiff company i.e. Ex.PW1/12.
20. Defendants in support of their case examined Sh.
Manoj Garg, defendant no.1 as DW-1 and Sh. Subhash Chand, as DW-2. DW-1 and DW-2 have tendered their examination in chief by way of affidavit as Ex.DW1/A and Ex.DW2/A. DW-1 has relied upon following document:-
1. Original Plastic envelope of Today Star Tea i.e. Ex.DW1/1.
2. Original Plastic envelope of Rajkorni The Best Quality Star Tea i.e. Ex.DW1/2.
3. Computer generated print out of receipt of the application of search under Copyright Act, 1957 i.e. Ex.DW1/3.
4. Colour copy of certificate of Trade Mark dated 22.12.2023 i.e. Mark A.
5. Colour copy of search certificate dated 24.04.2024 i.e. Mark B.
6. Colour copy of copyright NOC label bearing no.TMR-CC No.109849 i.e. Mark C.
7. Colour copy of print out of Rajkorni The Best Quality Tea i.e. Ex.DW1/7.
8. Copy of affidavit filed by the defendant no.1 i.e. Mark D. CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 12 of 22
9. Copy of reply filed by the registry of the Trade Mark, Delhi dated 21.07.2021 i.e. Ex.DW1/9.
10. Computer print out of Search Report i.e. Ex.DW1/10.
11. Copy of Navoday Daily Hindi Newspaper dated 26.07.2021 i.e. Mark E.
12. Copy of Punjab Kesri Daily Hindi newspaper dated 26.07.2021 i.e. Mark F.
13. Computerized print out of Health Trade License issued by EDMC i.e. Ex.DW1/13.
14. Copy of order passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court i.e. Ex.DW1/14 (colly).
15. Certificate u/s 63 of BSA i.e. Ex.DW1/15.
21. Arguments have been advanced by Mr. S. Nitin, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and by Mr. Charanjeet Singh, Ld. Counsel for defendants. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made on behalf of parties and gone through the record as well as written submissions, filed on behalf of plaintiff. My issue wise findings are as under:-
Issue no.1:-
Whether plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and concealed material facts? OPD
22. Onus to prove this issue was upon the defendants.
Defendant no.1 in his written statement has taken a preliminary objection that plaintiff has not approached the CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 13 of 22 court with clean hands and concealed the material facts. However, no evidence is led by defendants to show as to which material facts have been concealed by the plaintiff from the court and how he has not approached the court with clean hands. In absence thereof, this issue is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no.2:-
Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of injunction as prayed in para (a) to (c) of prayer clause of the plaint? OPP
23. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
Plaintiff in para no. (a) to (c) of the prayer clause has prayed a decree of injunction to the following effect:-
(a) To restrain the defendants, their associates etc., from doing the acts of disparagement with respect to the trademark TODAY TEA STAR and plaintiff's business.
(b) To restrain the defendants, their associates etc., from further uploading the defamatory contents as recorded with regard to the impugned videos as stated in the plaint.
(c) To direct the defendants to immediately take down the contents of the defamatory videos as uploaded by the defendants on several online platforms including Facebook and other social media platforms.
24. PW-1 in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A deposed that plaintiff is engaged in the well established business of CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 14 of 22 manufacturing, marketing and sell of Tea, Coffee amongst other goods falling in Class-30 since year 1994 under the House Mark TODAY and its variants which includes but not limited to, TODAY TEA, TODAY STAR, TODAY PREMIUM and STAR TEA and other TODAY formative marks and that the plaintiff has also obtained copyright registration both in Hindi and English in respect of its distinctive and original artistic work of the title TODAY STAR and TODAY STAR TEA amongst its other copyright registrations. In July, 2021, the plaintiff got to know that defendant no.1 is selling, marketing and manufacturing STAR TEA with similar artistic work, packaging material, get up, layout, lettering style, font and colour combination of plaintiff's TODAY STAR TEA and thereafter, plaintiff filed a complaint at PS Sonia Vihar, Delhi, pursuant to which, a raid was conducted at the premises of defendant no.1 in which infringing copies of plaintiff's tea was found.
25. PW-1 further deposed that on 10th December, 2021, a video titled "Today Tea Ke Karan Se Ek Parivaar Atmahatya Kar Leta" was uploaded at the Facebook page of defendant no.2 and 3 i.e. Wehindustan News in which defendant no.1 was interviewed by the defendant no.2 and the said interview was orchestrated and intended to malign and deviate the judicial proceedings and on going investigation. DW-1 Mr. Manoj Garg in his cross examination admitted that after the raid, he had called defendant no.2 for taking his interview.
26. It is matter of record that on 26.10.2024, while parties were addressing arguments on interim application under CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 15 of 22 Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC, as filed on behalf of plaintiff i.e. IA no.3/2024, it was submitted by Ld. Counsel for defendants that defendant no.2 and 3 will delete the video which was uploaded on 10.12.2021 regarding the interview of defendant no.1 from the Facebook page within three days from that day and that defendants will not publish any defamatory material against the plaintiff. In view thereof, defendants were directed to file their affidavit that they have deleted the video which was uploaded by them on 10.12.2021 regarding the interview of defendant no. 1 from their Facebook page and further not to publish any defamatory material against the plaintiff. In compliance thereof, defendant no.2 & 3 have filed their affidavit dated 29.10.2024 on record stating that they have deleted the disputed video/interview dated 10.12.2021 of the defendant no.1 on 28.10.2024. As the defendant no.2 & 3 have filed their affidavit regarding removing the impugned video as uploaded by them on social media platforms and defendants were restrained not to publish any defamatory material against the plaintiff, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Issue no.3:-
Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of damages in the sum of Rs.50,00,000/-, as claimed? OPP
27. Onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
Plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs.50,00,000/- on account of loss to the business and reputation caused to the plaintiff by uploading/publishing defamatory contents on several CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 16 of 22 Online platforms including facebook and other social media platforms.
28. PW-1 in his affidavit of evidence Ex.PW1/A deposed that plaintiff is registered proprietor of various trademark including TODAY TEA, STAR TEA and other TODAY formative marks and having copyright registration both in Hindi and English in respect of its distinctive and original artistic work for the title TODAY STAR and TODAY STAR TEA amongst its other trademark registration certificate and copyright registration certificate as Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5.
29. As deposed by PW-1, the case of plaintiff is that in the month of July, 2021, plaintiff got to know that the defendant no.1 Mr. Manoj Garg is selling, marketing and manufacturing STAR TEA with similar artistic work, packaging material, get up, layout, lettering style, font and colour combination of plaintiff's TODAY STAR TEA for which plaintiff filed a complaint in PS Sonia Vihar, Delhi against the defendant no.1, pursuant to which, a raid was conducted and infringing copies of plaintiff's tea were found. Thereafter, on 10.12.2021, a video titled "Today Tea ke Karan se ek Parivaar Atmahatya kar leta" was uploaded at the facebook page of defendant no.2 and 3 in which, defendant no.1 was interviewed by defendant no.2. Thus, plaintiff is aggrieved by the interview of defendant no.1 which was uploaded on social media platform by defendant no.2 & 3 and viewed by 1,25,000 people till that day and allegedly disparages the plaintiffs reputation and loss to the CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 17 of 22 business related to its registered trademark "TODAY TEA STAR".
30. DW-1 Mr. Manoj Garg in his affidavit of evidence Ex.DW1/A deposed that the plaintiff's trademark is TODAY STAR TEA and he prepared a sample of RAJKORNI THE BEST QUALITY STAR TEA and both the trademarks are totally different in style, font, appearance and colour. DW-1 deposed that he gave an interview to defendant no. 2 and 3 stating the true and correct facts regarding the incident of raid conducted at his business place on 24.07.2021 and the said raid was conducted by the police without any search warrant, court order and without any prior notice and though, he cooperated with the police and there was no violation of any trademark and copyright and still a false FIR bearing no.260/2021 under Section 63 of the Copyright Act was registered against him at PS Sonia Vihar, Delhi. DW-1 in his affidavit of evidence has deposed that whatever is stated by him in the impugned video is absolutely correct statement and no part is wrong in any manner.
31. In order to show that the tea packaging of his trade name 'RAJKORNI THE BEST QUALITY STAR TEA' is totally different in style, font, appearance and colour from plaintiff's trademark TODAY STAR TEA. DW-1 has exhibited original plastic envelope of TODAY STAR TEA i.e. Ex.D-1 and original plastic envelope of his RAJKORNI BEST QUALITY STAR TEA i.e. Ex.D-2. The image of both the original plastic envelopes as proved by the defendant appears as under:-
CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 18 of 22Plaintiff's product:-
Defendant's product:-CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 19 of 22
32. DW-1 in his cross examination has admitted that he was not having copyright registration of 'RAJKORNI STAR TEA' and voluntarily deposed that his application was in the process. He further confirmed that after the raid, he had called defendant no.2 for taking his interview and had stated in the said interview that "Today Star Tea ka bahiskaar kiya jaye". To a specific question, as put by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff, DW-1 deposed that he had stated so as all the facts were true and raid proceedings conducted at his premises was wrong.
33. DW-1 in his cross examination has further admitted that he had stated in his interview that "Today Star Tea ki chaypatti na beche" and voluntarily deposed that he said so because proceedings were wrong. He further admitted that he had stated in his interview that "Today Star Tea ne parivaar ko maarne ka shadyantra (conspiracy) hi bana diya tha" and voluntarily deposed that because the raid was conducted on false grounds and false news was got printed in the newspaper.
34. Admittedly, on the day of raid, the defendant was not having copyright for the artistic work of 'RAJKORNI STAR TEA' and the bare perusal of the plastic envelopes of the plaintiff's 'TODAY STAR TEA' i.e. Ex.D-1 and the defendant's 'RAJKORNI THE BEST QUALITY STAR TEA' i.e. Ex.D-2 show that the plastic envelope of the defendant's product is having similar colour combination, font, get up and artistic work as of the plaintiff's registered copyright of artistic work of trademark 'TODAY STAR TEA'.
CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 20 of 2235. Whether the raid conducted by the police at the premises of defendant on the basis of FIR No.260/2021 u/s 63 of the Copyright Act was in violation of law or not is the subject matter of final outcome of said case, but it does not in any manner authorize the defendant no.1 to call the public at large/dealers to boycott the product of plaintiff company. The plea of Ld. Counsel for defendants that the defendant no.1 was very tensed due to the conduct of raid and therefore, he had given the said interview, has no force.
36. As regards the question of award of damages on account of loss to the business of the plaintiff company, PW-1 in his cross examination has deposed that they suffered loss/reputation of the brand value, but he cannot quantify damages in this regard. He further admitted that they have not filed any document alongwith his affidavit of evidence to show any loss in sales of the company on account of the circulation of video Ex.PW1/10. Plaintiff has relied upon his year wise sales summary upto year 2020-21 i.e. Ex.PW1/6 and the video was uploaded in December, 2021 and after uploading of the video, plaintiff has not shown that its sales was decreased from the previous year. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for any compensatory damages on account of loss of business by circulation of video Ex.PW1/10. Admittedly, defendant no.1 in his interview/video Ex.PW1/10 has stated not to purchase tea of the plaintiff company and that the plaintiff company hatched a conspiracy to kill his family and the said video had 1,25,000 views. These statements itself shows that same were made in order to tarnish the goodwill of plaintiff CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 21 of 22 company and its products in the eyes of public at large by the defendant no.1. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff company is entitled for punitive damages of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac only) from the defendant no.1. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.1.
Relief
37. In view of my findings on abovementioned issues, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, thereby restraining the defendants and their associates from doing the act of disparagement with respect to plaintiff's trademark TODAY STAR TEA and further the defendants are restrained from uploading the defamatory contents with regard to video Ex.PW1/10 on any social media platform.
38. A decree of punitive damages of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lac only) is also passed in favour of plaintiff and against defendant no.1. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. Digitally signed by SANJEEV SANJEEV KUMAR File be consigned to Record Room. KUMAR MALHOTRA MALHOTRA Date:
2025.07.29 16:14:18 +0530 Announced in the open court on 29th July, 2025 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) District Judge (Commercial Court) North-East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi CS (Comm) 25/2022 Today Tea Limited vs. Manoj Garg and Ors. Page 22 of 22