Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3707
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN, J.
MHCS - Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Gaurav Shekhri & Ors. - Defendants
CS(COMM) 1466 of 2016
Decided On : 07-11-2017
For the Plaintiff :Mr. Dhruv Anand, Advocate with Ms. Udita Patro and Mr. Shamim Nooreyezdan, Advocates.
For the Defendants :Mr. Rajat Singh, Advocate for defendants No.1 and 2.
The court's decision was influenced by the un-controverted averments in the plaint and the defendants' admission of the deceptively similar nature of their label, leading to the entitlement of the plaintiff to the relief claimed.
Headnote:
Compromise - Civil Procedure - Order 23 Rule 3, Section 151 CPC - 82(a), (b), (c) - The court decreed the suit in accordance with the compromise application and relevant sections of the Civil Procedure Code.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a luxury goods company, filed a suit against defendants for infringing its trademark and trade dress. The plaintiff sought relief of permanent injunction and costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff against defendants No.3 and 4 in terms of the relief claimed for in para 82(a), (b), and (g) of the plaint along with the actual costs.
Issues: Infringement of trademark and trade dress, entitlement to relief of permanent injunction and costs, establishment of quantum of damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff's entitlement to relief was based on the un-controverted averments in the plaint and the defendants' admission of the deceptively similar nature of their label.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff against defendants No.3 and 4 in terms of the relief claimed for in para 82(a), (b), and (g) of the plaint along with the actual costs.
MANMOHAN, J.
I.A. 13009/2017
1. Present joint application has been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. The same is duly signed by learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 as well as by the said parties to the litigation.
2. Present application is also supported by affidavits of authorized representative/constituted attorney of the plaintiff and the defendants No.1 and 2.
3. Both the learned counsel state that the matter has been compromised in accordance with the terms mentioned in the Compromise application.
4. Both the learned counsel further assure and undertake to this Court that the parties shall comply with the Settlement terms mentioned in the said Compromise application.
5. The aforesaid statements, assurances and undertakings as well as undertakings given by learned counsel for the parties are accepted by this Court and parties are held bound by the same.
6. This Court has also perused the compromise application and is of the opinion that it is lawful.
7. Consequently, the suit is decreed qua defendants No.1 and 2 in accordance with paragraph 82(a), (b) and (c) of the plaint as well as the Compromise application being I.A. No.13009/2017, a copy of which is marked as Ex.C-1. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.
8. With the aforesaid observations, present application is allowed and the suit stands disposed of qua defendants No.1 and 2.
9. The application stands disposed of.
CS(COMM) 1466/2016 & I.A. 13473/2016
10. Since none appears for defendants No.3 and 4, they are proceeded ex parte.
11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in view of the judgment of this Court in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., the present suit should be decreed qua the relief of injunction. The relevant portion of the said judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff is reproduced herein below:-
“I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. I have therefore heard the counsel for the plaintiffs on merits qua the relief of injunction.”
12. He further states that he has instructions not to press for any other relief other than the relief of permanent injunction and costs, as prayed for in para 82(a), (b) and (g) of the plaint.
13. The relevant facts of the present case as stated in the plaint are as under:-
(A) The plaintiff is MHCS situated at 9 Avenue de Champagne, 51200, Epernay, France. The plaintiff is a subsidiary of the luxury goods company LVMH. LVMH is a French multinational luxury goods conglomerate headquartered at Paris. The company was formed by the 1987 merger of fashion house Louis Vuitton (LV) with Moet Hennessy (MH).
(B) The best known label of MHCS is Dom Pérignon. The plaintiff manages the Dom Pérignon brand of champagne. The iconic champagne derives its name from Mr. Dom Pierre Pérignon, a Benedictine Monk who was an important quality pioneer for champagne wine and is remembered in legend as the ‘Father of Champagne’.
(C) The plaintiff is the owner of the Dom Perignon trade mark and the unique shield device label, as well as unique trade dress in which the product is packaged.
(D) The distinctive label of the Dom Pérignon product consists of a double-bordered shield-shape device with the innermost of the borders emboldened. The shield-shape is gently curved and has a central point at the bottom and three points at the top. Within these
