Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.5 It is further stated that plaintiff has not presented any credible or concrete evidence to substantiate the claim that defendant used the trademark UNIVERSAL in relation to any products including geometry boxes.

2.6 It is further stated that plaintiff is misusing the judicial process in order to harass and pressurize the defendant by filing frivolous and baseless allegations.

2.7 It is further stated that plaintiff is further attempting to create a false connection between the defendant's firm 'Smart Industries' and alleged geometry box bearing the name Smart. Defendant never manufactured, sold or dealt with the said geometry box and is completely unaware of its origin. Plaintiff appears to have fabricated his claim and introduced the alleged geometry box solely to exert undue pressure on the defendant which amounts to fabricating the evidence.

ARGUMENTS

7. Both the learned counsels for the parties addressed final arguments. Learned counsel for plaintiff also filed written submissions.

8. Learned Sh. P.K. Jain, Advocate for plaintiff argued that plaintiff has duly proved its case against the defendant. The defendant has infringed the registered trademark of plaintiff due to which plaintiff has suffered irreparable loss.

9. Learned Sh. Ravi Chauhan, Advocate for defendant argued that there is no cause of action for filing the present suit. The plaintiff has filed the present suit to exert undue pressure upon the defendant. Defendant has never used the trademark UNIVERSAL. It is further argued that plaintiff has not presented any credible or concrete evidence to substantiate the claim Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi Digitally signed Page no. 9 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 AJAY by AJAY PANDEY PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:37:46 +0530 that defendant used the trademark UNIVERSAL in relation to any products including geometry boxes. It is also argued that plaintiff is further attempting to create a false connection between the defendant's firm 'Smart Industries' and alleged geometry box bearing the name Smart. He further argued that defendant never manufactured, sold or dealt with the said geometry box and is completely unaware of its origin.

14. Learned Sh. P.K. Jain further submitted that defendant is selling off his products clandestinely and, therefore, plaintiff could not obtain any invoice or purchase receipt of the infringing products sold by defendant.

15. This Court is of the humble opinion that the plaintiff has failed to discharge onus to prove this issue. In the pleadings as well as in his testimony, constant stand of the defendant is that he never used the trade mark UNIVERSAL nor manufactured or marketed any goods with the said trade mark. Plaintiff has vaguely stated in the pleadings as well as in his evidence that recently it came to the knowledge of plaintiff that defendant has adopted the trade mark or label UNIVERSAL. Source of knowledge of the plaintiff about such user by defendant is not disclosed. Particulars of any shop or other place, where the product with the label UNIVERSAL is being sold or displayed by the defendant is not specified. The date when the plaintiff got to know about such user by defendant is not spelled. There is not a single invoice from the defendant or any Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi AJAY by AJAY PANDEY Page no. 11 of 15 PANDEY Date: 2025.10.13 14:38:00 +0530 person associated with the defendant to reflect that the defendant has ever sold the product with trade mark UNIVERSAL. No market survey conducted by the plaintiff about availability of such product in the market is referred to in the plaint or evidence. In his cross- examination PW-1 stated that the factory of defendant is situated in Sadar Bazar, Delhi. He further stated "I have never visited factory of defendant. It is correct that I have not seen defendant printing the artistic device as shown in Ex. PW-1/2 or similar artistic device in shape of geometry box". Thereafter, suggestion was given to PW-1 that the defendant never manufactured any geometry box picture of which is reflected in Ex. PW-1/D1. PW-1 denied the suggestion that because the defendant never manufactured any such geometry box, therefore, no receipt or other document to connect the alleged geometry box with the defendant was filed. PW-1 further denied the suggestion that there was no cause of action for filing the present suit against defendant as he never violated alleged trade mark or trade device of plaintiff.

16. There is no admission in the cross-examination of the defendant of user of alleged trade mark or trade device. Mere printout or picture of some geometry box with purported trade mark UNIVERSAL and logo Smart, is not sufficient to presume that the defendant is manufacturing, selling or marketing any geometry box as by AJAY Sh. Vijay Abrol Vs Sh. Himanshu Rastogi AJAY PANDEY Page no. 12 of 15 CS Comm 1397/2024 PANDEY Date: