Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, 2015
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
The Copyright Act, 1957
Koninlijke Philips N.V. & Anr. vs Amazestore & Ors. on 22 April, 2019
25. As brought on record, considerable jurisprudence has
developed in the recent past to burden the infringers with
CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 26/30
punitive damages apart from actual damages. Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi in Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Anr. Vs. Amazestore
(supra) as also relied upon by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and a
connected matter decided on 22.04.2019 in CS (Comm) 737 of
2016 has laid down some of the principles which a Court ought
to look into while granting punitive damages. While awarding
compensatory damages as claimed by the plaintiff's, the Court
awarded aggravate/exemplary damages of a total of Rs 1 Crore
over and above the compensatory damages on account of the
degree of malafide conduct of the defendants. Hon'ble High
Court has also laid down the rule of thumb that should be
followed while granting damages, with observation that
injunction may be granted against the first time innocent
infringer, while injunction and cost may be awarded against first
time knowing infringer whereas the repeated knowing infringer
causing minor and major impact to the plaintiff may be burdened
with injunction, costs, partial damages/compensatory damages
respectively. Aggravated damages may be awarded to the
deliberate and calculated infringer (Gangster/scam/ mafia) +
wilful contempt of court.
Section 134 in The Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Entire Act]
Dkt India vs Hll Lifecare Ltd. & Anr on 8 December, 2014
(c) In DKT India vs HLL Lifecare Ltd. & Anr., CS(OS)
No. 2497/2012, no raid was conducted. Further, the plaintiff
CS (Comm) No. : 154/2025 21/30
himself filed an additional document on record, which showed
that even before the suit was filed, the defendant number one had
intimated that they were willing to settle the dispute between the
parties. In this case, only a nominal damage of Rs. 1,00,000 was
granted. Since the court was of the opinion that, had the plaintiff
settled the matter with the defendant, the need for filing a suit
would not have arisen altogether.
J & P Coats Ltd & Anr vs Rahul Gupta & Ors on 29 April, 2014
(a) That, in J&P Coats Ltd. Vs. Rahul Gupta,
MANU/DE/1899/2014, no infringing goods were seized from the
premises of the defendant. This is the distinguishing factor in our
case. Since no goods were sized, Defendant No. 1 is making a
statement that he has neither infringed on the trademark of the
plaintiff nor will he do the same in the future. In the present case
of the plaintiff, the impugned goods were seized by the Local
Commissioner, which indicates that the defendant was actually
involved in infringing activities.
Montblanc-Simplo Gmbh vs M/S Jai Lakshman & Ors on 5 August, 2022
(b) In Montblanc-Simplo GMBH vs. M/S Jai Lakshman
and Ors, 2023/DHC/000267, the remaining defendants who had
filed an application under Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 were merely sellers of the impugned goods, and
they also stated in their Written Statement that "Defendant
themselves are like the customers of the same impugned
products, who do not know the origin, authenticity, and
genuineness of the impugned products."
Whatman International Limited vs P Mehta & Ors. on 1 February, 2019
Whatman International Limited versus P. Mehta and
Others [2019: DHC:676]: