The judgment establishes the exclusive rights of the plaintiffs to the 'Virgin' mark, the infringement by the defendant, and the entitlement to damages even in the absence of exact sales figures.

S.P. Garg, J.

1. The plaintiffs have instituted the present suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing their trademark and passing off their services as that of his. Briefly stated, the facts set up in the plaint are as under :

2. The plaintiff No.1–Virgin Enterprises Limited is a member of the Virgin Group of Companies. It was originally established by Sir Richard Branson in 1970. It is a company incorporated in England and Wales and is a member of the Group of Companies collectively known as the Virgin Group of Companies. Plaintiff No.2 – Virgin Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. having its registered office at 2-A, Old Ishwar Nagar, Main Mathura Road, New Delhi, is a licence of the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiffs were licenced to use the ‘Virgin’ name. It was originally established by its founder and chairman-Sir Richard Branson in the United Kingdom in 1970. Since then, the ‘Virgin Group’ has grown significantly in terms of its size, geographical reach and the number of industries. The ‘Virgin Group’ has traded under the ‘Virgin’ name since 1970 and continues to do so. It has built up a considerable amount of reputation and goodwill in the ‘Virgin’ name through its varied activities. Till date, the Group has created more than 300 branded companies worldwide, employing approximately 50,000 people in 30 countries. The plaintiff No.1 owns over 3,000 trademark applications and registrations worldwide for the marks ‘Virgin’ and ‘Virgin Signature Logo’ in over 150 countries, including India, spanning across all the 45 classes of goods and services. The mark ‘Virgin’ was first registered by the plaintiffs on April 11, 1973 in the United Kingdom. Estimated total worldwide turnover figures for the ‘Virgin Group’ for the years 1995 to 2010 have been described in para No.12 of the plaint. It is further averred that ‘Virgin’ brand is consistently recognized for its distinctive nature and reputation spanning across numerous industry sectors. It has been consistently ranked in the top ten of most successful, innovative, admired and respected brands by independent survey companies. Information about these surveys has been detailed in para No.15 of the plaint.

3. It is further averted that the present suit concerns the plaintiff No.1’s statutory and common law rights over their trademark ‘Virgin’ as well as for the violation of such rights by the defendant by adoption and use of deceptively identical name and colour combination for its company ‘Virgin Paradise Airlines Training Pvt. Ltd.’. The plaintiffs have given a comprehensive list of all the registered marks of the plaintiff No.1 in India in para No.20 of the plaint.

4. Further case of the plaintiff No.1 is that it came across an identical and deceptively named company ‘Virgin Paradise Airlines Training Pvt. Ltd. ’in May, 2009. The said name for incorporation has been used by the defendant with mala-fide intent. The pronounceable, prominent and memorable feature of the first word of the name of the company incorporated by defendant is identical and deceptive to those of the celebrated trademark ‘Virgin’ of the plaintiff No.1. The similarity of the area of service offered by defendant and the services offered by the plaintiff No.1 i.e. aviation sector make the mark ‘Virgin’ more prone to confusion and deception to public.

5. Plaintiff No.1’s further case is that time and again defendant has been requested to drop the word ‘Virgin’ from the company. Letter dated 28.05.2009 was written to the defendant requesting deletion of the name ‘Virgin’ from their company’s name. On 30.06.2009, a letter dated 20.06.2009 was received from the defendant asking plaintiff No.1 the copies of Virgin’s trademark registrations in India. The necessary information was given by a letter dated 06.07.2009. Again, on 14.07.2009, a letter dated 07.07.2009 was received from the defendant counsel out-rightly denying the plaintiff No.1’s request. There were conversations for amicable settle