KAILASH GAMBHIR

1. This order shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiff under order 39 Rules 1& 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Before I deal with the said application it will be necessary to give narration of brief facts of the case as set out by the plaintiff in the plaint and the defence raised by the defendant in the written statement. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, its directors/ proprietor/ partners etc from using the trade-mark/trade-name ICRAVE or any other mark/name as may be confusingly or deceptively similar to the said trade-mark/trade-name of the plaintiff in respect of goods of their manufacture and sale and services provided by them amounting to passing off their goods and services and business of the plaintiff and from taking any benefit of the reputation or goodwill of the plaintiff in respect of the said trade-mark or name ICRAVE in any manner whatsoever. The plaintiff has also prayed for an order of delivery up and has also claimed damages to the tune of Rs.20,05,000/-from the defendants for passing off the goods and services of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a Limited Liability Company and is said to be a world renowned Design Studio having its headquarters in New York, USA and is engaged in providing consultancy and turn key project services in the area of interior and architectural designing and is amongst the market leaders in the said field world wide. The plaintiff has claimed that in the year 2002 the plaintiff coined and adopted the inherently distinctive mark ICRAVE as its trademark and also as a prominent part of its trade name and since then the plaintiff has established a high profile client base in the hospitality and retail sectors and the reputation of the plaintiff is well known for delivering many of the Manhattan’s top nightclubs and restaurants including six restaurants within the new terminal at USA’s John F.Kennedy International Airport. The

plaintiff has further claimed that its reputation grew over the years around the globe from the Mc Cormick Center in Glasgow, Scotland to the recently opened Holland Casino in Rotterdam, Netherlands. The details of various such projects have been given by the plaintiff in para 3 of the plaint. The plaintiff has also claimed that it has been recognized from time to time for its quality services in the area of interior and architectural design and in pursuance of this recognition in the said field the plaintiff has been recipient of innumerable international awards and some of them have been detailed by the plaintiff in para 4 of the plaint. The plaintiff has also claimed that the name of the plaintiff and its projects have been in news world-wide through various newspapers and magazines having global circulation and prominent among those have been Razor, Mondo, Club Systems, Zink etc. and that many of such publications have a regular circulation in India. The plaintiff has also claimed that the said trade-mark/trade-name of the plaintiff is used alongwith stylized version ICRAVE. The plaintiff has also claimed that ICRAVE is a coined term and has no dictionary meaning and due to long and extensive use of the said trade mark consuming public across the world today associates the said mark with the plaintiff alone and none else. The plaintiff has also claimed that it has considerable presence in India since the last many years and substantial segment of the public which uses and require such services associate the trade name ICRAVE exclusively with the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also claimed that it has been receiving business queries from various Indian entities since the last 3-4 years and the plaintiff has been forwarding its proposals to many Indian companies. The plaintiff has placed on record few such proposals as were forwarded by it to the renowned Indian entities such as Fame Multiplex at Bangalore, Adlabs Multiplex in Mumb