Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 781
High Court of Delhi
G.S. SISTANI, J.
Imperial Auto Safety Glass
Versus
Virender Gupta & Others
CS (OS) No. 1108 of 2008
Decided on: 11-03-2014
For the Plaintiff:Mohan Vidhani, Rahul Vidhani, Advocates.
Punitive damages are necessary to deter trademark infringement and deception, and to uphold corrective justice.
Headnote:
Trademark Infringement - Trademarks Act, 1999 - Sections 29, 27(2), 134, 135
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit under Sections 29, 27(2), 134, 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 for trademark infringement, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts, and delivery up. Plaintiff provided evidence of ownership and extensive use of the trademarks and trade names, along with substantial sales figures and advertising efforts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had established ownership and extensive use of the trademarks and trade names, and the evidence presented was unrebutted. The defendants deliberately stayed away from the proceedings, leading to the inability to determine damages through an account inquiry. The court emphasized the need for punitive damages to deter trademark infringement and deception, ultimately decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff and awarding damages.
Issues: Ownership and use of trademarks, deliberate absence of defendants, determination of damages, punitive damages
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing ownership and extensive use of trademarks, the consequences of deliberate absence from court proceedings, the need for punitive damages to deter trademark infringement, and the philosophy of corrective justice underlying punitive damages.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff, who was awarded damages of Rs.2.0 lacs.
G.S. Sistani, J (Oral)
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit under Sections 29, 27 (2), 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of Trademark, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc. Summons were issued in the suit on 30.5.2008. On an application for appointment of Local Commissioner moved by the plaintiff a Local Commissioner was also appointed in the matter. The summons were served on the defendants and after filing the written statement the defendants stopped appearing in the matter. Defendant no.3 was proceeded ex parte on 12.12.2008 and defendant no.2 was proceeded ex parte on 18.11.2013. The suit stands abated qua defendant no.1.
2. Plaintiff has filed evidence of three witnesses, PW-1 is the partner of the plaintiff firm. PW-2 is another partner of the plaintiff firm who has deposed on the lines of the PW-1, and has exhibited certain additional documents. PW-3 is an official witness from the office of the registrar of Trademarks. The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm. The partnership deed dated 12.4.2002 has been exhibited as Ex.PW-2/1. The partnership firm initially comprised of four partners, Sh. Sanjeev Goyal, Sh. Virender Gupta (Defendant No. 1), Sh. Ram Kishore Barwa and Bakshish Singh Saini (PW-2). Thereafter Sh.Ram Kishore Barwa and Sh.Virender Gupta retired from the partnership firm by means of a registered retirement deed dated 31.8.2006. The registered retirement deed dated 31.8.2006 is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/38.
3. It is deposed by PW-1 (Asmeet Saini) that the plaintiff firm is the proprietor of the following registered trade marks:
Trade Mark
App. No.
Date of
Registration
Description of
Goods
Status
Valid
Untill
IAS
(LABEL)
1094537
11/4/2002 Toughened glass, tempered glass and automotive safety glass Regd.
10/4/2012
IMPERIAL
SAFETY
GLASS
(ISG)
(LABEL)
1105340
17/5/2002
Automotive toughened safety glass, architectural toughened glass and laminated safety glass Regd.
16/5/2012
DAMBLER
1125184
9/8/2002
Automotive toughened safety glass, architectural toughened glass
and laminated safety glass Regd.
8/8/2012
4. PW-1 has deposed that the firm is the owner and proprietor of distinctive trade marks and the trade name as stated above in respect of the aforesaid goods manufactured and sold by the firm. The said trade marks and trade name of the plaintiff firm have been in continuous use in respect of the goods for which it is registered. The registration certificates of the above said trademarks are exhibited as Ex. PW 1/4 – Ex. PW 1/6
5. PW-1 has deposed that the plaintiff firm has conducted huge sales under the trade mark IAS, IMPERIAL SAFETY GLASS (ISG) and under the trade name IMPERIAL AUTO SAFETY GLASS in respect of aforesaid goods manufactured and sold by it. The goods manufactured and sold by the plaintiff firm under the said marks have been sold practically throughout India either by the plaintiff firm directly or through its dealers’network. PW-1 has further deposed that the public and members of trade associate the said trade marks in respect of aforesaid goods only with that of the plaintiff firm. The yearly sales figures of the plaintiff firm prior to the filing of the suit which are reproduced below:
YEAR
SALES
2002-2003 8120940.97
2003-2004 11747094.00
2004-2005 16864142.00
2005-2006 26955033.00
2006-2007 28526103.00
2007-2008 40401276.00
6. Some of the sales bills of the plaintiff firm for the sales under the said mark of the plaintiff firm are exhibited as Ex. PW 1/7 to PW-1/22.
7. PW-1 has also deposed that the plaintiff firm is using the mark IAS (Label) since 1997 and ISG (Label) since 1/5/2002 on the goods and also on the plastic packings thereof and by putting the stickers etc. Further, PW-1 has deposed that the plaintiff firm has sometimes been using the trade marks, “IMPERIAL AUTO SAFETY” and “IMPERIAL SAFETY GLASS” on the stickers, plastic packing and on the goods which is also the full name of plaintiff firm’s
