Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
Satya Infrastructure Ltd. And Others - Appellants
Versus
Satya Infra and Estates Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
C.S. (OS) 1213 of 2011
Decided On : 07-02-2013
Trademark Infringement - Injunction - Companies Act, 1956, Trade Marks Act, 1999, Section 20 - 36, 37, 41 - The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark 'SATYA' or any similar mark, citing infringement of the registered trademark of the plaintiffs and the likelihood of causing confusion among customers. The court also referred to Section 20 of the Companies Act, 1956, which prohibits registration of a company in a name identical or similar to a registered trademark.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendant for using the mark 'SATYA' or any similar mark, claiming infringement of their registered trademark and unfair advantage over their goodwill. The defendant did not contest the suit, leading to an ex parte proceeding.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had established a case for injuncting the defendant from using the mark 'SATYA' or any similar mark, citing evidence of continuous use and registration of the trademark. The court also noted the likelihood of confusion among customers and the defendant's violation of the Companies Act, 1956.
Issues: The issues involved the infringement of the plaintiffs' registered trademark, unfair advantage gained by the defendant, and the violation of the Companies Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the plaintiffs' continuous use and registration of the trademark, the likelihood of confusion among customers, and the violation of the Companies Act, 1956 by the defendant.
Final Decision: The court granted a permanent injunction against the defendant, restraining them from using the mark 'SATYA' or any similar mark, and allowed three months for the defendant to rectify its name in compliance with the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
The plaintiffs have sued for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from carrying on business under the mark "SATYA" or any other Mark/trading name identical or deceptively similar to the logo/label "SATYA" of the plaintiffs and for delivery of infringing stationary, hoardings, boards, printed material, dies, block etc. and for rendition of accounts and recovery of damages of Rs. 21,00,000/-. Summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief were issued to the defendant. The plaintiffs filed affidavit of service with proof of delivery of summons on the defendant. However, vide order dated 12.10.2012, fresh summons of the suit were issued to the defendant. Another affidavit of service together with report generated from the website of DHL Couriers was filed and on perusal whereof, the Joint Registrar was satisfied that the shipment had been delivered on 16.11.2012. None appeared for the defendant. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before this Bench for appropriate orders against the defendant. Today also none has appeared for the defendant. The counsel for the plaintiffs presses for interim injunction.
2. The plaintiffs have given the address of the defendant of Bangalore, Karnataka. The affidavit of service dated 26.11.2012 has been filed by the Court Clerk of the Advocate for the plaintiffs to the effect that notice was sent to the defendant by Blue Dart Courier on 15.11.2012 and was delivered on 16.11.2012. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the said affidavit emanating from the chamber of the Advocate for the plaintiffs and it has to be presumed that the shipment which has been reported to be delivered to the defendant contained the summons of the suit and notice of the application together with copies of the plaint, application and other documents etc. If it is discovered otherwise, of course the Advocate for the plaintiffs would be accountable. The defendant is thus proceeded against ex parte.
3. The next question which arises is whether this Court should consider the application for interim relief and direct the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs are willing to give up the reliefs of delivery, of rendition of accounts and of recovery of damages, if the suit for the relief of injunction alone were to be heard today.
4. 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.
5. The plaintiffs have pleaded:
(ii) The "SATYA" Group is associated with a shopping mall-cum-commercial complex in the name of Centrum Plaza, another shopping mall in the name of City Centre, a township in the name of Malwa County, a five star hotel-cum
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
