Mr. Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The two plaintiffs Info Edge (India) Ltd. and Sanjeev Bikhchandani, claiming to be proprietor/owner and lawful user since March, 1997 of the mark/name ‘NAUKRI’ and the domain name ‘NAUKRI.COM’, and carrying on business as a career website/jobsite under the domain name ‘NAUKRI.COM’, instituted this suit to restrain the defendant Sumanta Bhattacharya from using the mark ‘NAUKRIE.COM’ or any other domain name which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs? domain name ‘NAUKRI.COM’ and for ancillary reliefs.

2. The suit was entertained and while issuing summons thereof, vide ex parte ad interim order dated 18th January, 2003, the defendant was restrained from using the domain name ‘NAUKRIE.COM’ and from transferring, alienating or creating any other interests in the domain name ‘NAUKRIE.COM’. Vide order dated 10th February, 2004 the defendant Sumanta Bhattacharya was further restrained from meddling with the plaintiffs? ownership, use and possession with Network Solutions L.L.C. in respect of domain name ‘NAUKRI.COM.’

3. The defendant contested the suit and pleadings were completed.

4. Vide order dated 23rd September, 2004, M/s. Network Solutions Inc. United States, being the Registrar of domain names and with which the domain name ‘NAUKRIE.COM’ of the defendant was registered, was impleaded as defendant no.2. Vide order dated 4th March, 2005 the name of the defendant no.2 was corrected to M/s. Network Solutions L.L.C. on the statement of the representative of M/s. Network Solutions L.L.C. that it was M/s. Network Solutions L.L.C. and not M/s. Network Solutions Inc. which was the Registrar of the domain names.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 15th May, 2006:

“1. Whether plaintiff No.1 is the proprietor of the mark/domain name NAUKRI.COM? OPP

2. Whether back ordering of the domain name NAUKRI.COM confers any ownership rights on defendant No.1 in the domain name? OPD

3. Whether the mark/domain name NAUKRIE.COM being used by the defendant is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ mark NAUKRI.COM? OPP

4. Whether the use of the mark NAUKRIE amounts to passing off vis-a-vis the plaintiffs’ website and domain name NAUKRI.COM? OPP

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages? If so, the extent thereof? OPP

6. Relief.”

6. With the consent of the parties, vide order dated 15th May, 2006 the ex parte ad interim orders 18th December, 2003 and the order dated 10th February, 2004 were ordered to continue during the pendency of the suit.

7. The suit continued to languish. Finally, the recording of evidence of the plaintiff no.2 Sanjeev Bikhchandani commenced on 18th March, 2008. However before the cross-examination of the said witness could commence, on 9th September, 2010 the counsels stated that there is no need for recording evidence and each party i.e. the plaintiff and the first defendant would file one affidavit in support of the documents relied upon by them and the Court may proceed to hear the final arguments.

8. On behalf of the defendant no.2 Network Solutions L.L.C., on 9th September, 2010 it was stated that it will be bound by the decree of the Court and would implement it and was thus not required to participate further in the suit.

9. Vide order dated 9th September, 2010, the application of the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint, as a consequence to registration during the pendency of the suit, of the trade marks ‘NAUKRI’, NAUKRI.COM and ‘NAUKRI.ORG’ in class 9,42 and 16 on 11th February, 2005, 9th June, 2006 and 17th March, 2006 respectively, to incorporate therein the claim against the defendants, also on the basis of infringement of trade mark, was allowed.

10. Pursuant to the amendment aforesaid, on 2nd November, 2012, the following additional issue was framed in the suit:-

“Whether the defendants are infringing the trademark/trade name ‘NAUKRI.COM’ of the plaintiffs, if so its effect?”

and the counsels reiterated that they did not want to lea