Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Plaintiff is aggrieved with Defendants indulging in unauthorized third- party distribution of counterfeit microSDHC cards and Cruzer Blade USB Titled - SanDisk LLC v. Mahender and Anr.

2023:DHC:2187 Flash Drives bearing Plaintiff's SanDisk Trademarks 'SanDisk', ' ', 'Cruzer Blade' and Red Frame Logo [' '] with identical, packaging as that of Plaintiff's products. In August 2019, Plaintiff gained knowledge of use of the said marks in Old Lajpat Rai Market. To ascertain the extent and identity of person(s) involved in manufacturing, selling, marketing and distributing counterfeit products using Plaintiff's SanDisk Trademarks, an investigator was deputed to survey the market which revealed: Mr. Amit/ Defendant No. 1 [operator/ owner of display counter opp. Shop No. 695 at Old Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi - 110006 - hereinafter "Location 1"] and several other temporary/ makeshift establishments were selling impugned products, who remain unidentified and were arrayed as John Doe(s)/ Defendant No. 2.

6. A comparison of front and backside of Plaintiff's product, with that of Defendants' infringing products, are given below:

ORIGINAL PRODUCT OF PLAINTIFF COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS OF DEFENDANTS 2023:DHC:2187

7. On the scrutiny of the images depicted above, the features which distinguish Plaintiff's original/ genuine products from Defendant No. 1's counterfeit products are listed hereinbelow:

13. In view of the pleadings, documents as well as LC Reports that have been placed on record, the Court is of the view that affixation of Plaintiff's registered marks on Defendants' goods is done with the intention to unlawfully profit from and create unauthorised association with the goodwill and cachet enjoyed by Plaintiff's 'SanDisk' products. The use of Plaintiff's SanDisk Trademarks is bound to cause palpable losses, harm and injury to Plaintiff as well as public. Defendants were attempting to deceive the public into buying their counterfeit products. The likelihood of confusion and deception feuled by the mala-fide intention of Defendants is evident. Defendants have made use of identical trade marks, in relation to identical goods (counterfeit microSDHC cards and USB Flash drives), while catering to the same end-use consumers, hence a clear case of trade mark infringement and passing-off is proved.

2023:DHC:2187 to decree of permanent injunction in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the amended Plaint.

15. On damages, Plaintiff also argues that in light of Defendants' patently dishonest activities considering the unfair trade practice and fast-moving nature of products, Plaintiff is entitled to actual loss of sales. Plaintiff's also argue that since Defendants have sold Plaintiff's counterfeit products and thereby, harmed their reputation and goodwill, heavy and punitive damages should be awarded. Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in M/s General Electric Company v. Mr. Altamas Khan and Ors.,6 and Microsoft Corporation v. Yogesh Papat & Anr.7 have granted compensatory damages based on certain assumptions of sales. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, Defendants' conduct invites the award of damages. However, since Plaintiff has not led any substantial evidence for the said relief, taking a reasonable assessment and considering nature of counterfeiting indulged into by Defendants, in the opinion of the Court, Plaintiff is entitled to nominal damages, which are to be quantified severally commensurate with the volume of seizure of the infringing goods.