Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

38. Admittedly the defendants were distributors and major seller of the plaintiff. This fact is not in dispute. On entire perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 the dispute mainly started when the turnover has come down at the relevant point of time. Merely because of turnover has come down that may not be a ground to hold that such short of sale was because of the counterfeit product and such inference cannot be drawn. The increase or decrease of the turnover always depends upon the various factors. One cannot expect that only the plaintiff goods always sold and turnover will increase every year. Therefore, merely on that ground, it cannot be inferred that there were counterfeit products. Admittedly the defendant also dealing with the plumbing and similar business. The Defendants also manufactured different type of valves from the year 1996. Such being the position, when the plaintiff's specific allegation that the Defendant is manufactured the counterfeit products of the http://www.judis.nic.in  C.S.No.405 of 2014 and C.S.No.891 of 2015 plaintiff, the entire burden lies on the plaintiff to establish the manufacture of counterfeit product of the plaintiff. Except relying upon the investigation report, which has also contained serious discrepancies as discussed above, this Court is unable to countenance the contention of the plaintiff. Further no materials whatsoever filed in this regard to show that the products are counterfeit one.