Strict compliance with court orders and consequences of contumacious conduct

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, (Oral) J. - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, dilution and tarnishment of trademark, unfair competition, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, and other reliefs. The Plaintiff claims to be the proprietor of the registered trademark 'CROSSFIT' used in respect of services in the health, fitness and nutrition sector. The details of the Plaintiff's registrations in respect of the mark 'CROSSFIT' are set out below:

3. The Plaintiff is a company based out of California, USA incorporated under the name CrossFit Inc., in the year 2004. Thereafter, the Plaintiff was incorporated in the State of Delaware, USA in the year 2008. As set out in the Plaint, the Plaintiff is mainly engaged in the business of providing products and services in the health, fitness and nutrition space. The business model of the Plaintiff includes providing services for strength training, fitness programs in addition to conducting fitness seminars and providing trainer certifications. It has operations in more than 145 countries and has more than 1.3 lakh accredited CrossFit Level 1 trainers. There are more than 15,000 gyms which are affiliated with the Plaintiff and are using the mark 'CROSSFIT'.

4. The Plaintiff coined and adopted the mark 'CROSSFIT' in the year 1995 and has been continuously and extensively using the said mark in respect of its products and services. In India, the first 'CROSSFIT' gym was opened in the year 2009 and it has more than 40 licensees/affiliates. The Plaintiff also registered the domain name 'www.crossfit.com' in October, 1999. The Plaintiff has obtained various registrations for the word and device mark 'CROSSFIT' in India and in other jurisdictions, including European Union, Australia, USA, Japan, Bahrain, China, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and United Arb Emirates. The 'CROSSFIT' mark is used by the Plaintiff, as also, its licensees across the world. It has collaborations with various other companies and foundations, and has organized several events, including the 'CROSSFIT' Games, which are held annually since the year 2007. The mark is extensively advertised and popularised. The advertising expenses incurred by the Plaintiff in respect of services provided by the Plaintiff under the mark 'CROSSFIT' is stated to be over USD 2.5 million in the year 2016. The Plaintiff's sponsorship revenue for the year 2018-21 was also around USD 25 million.

5. The grievance of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant is a gym and fitness centre owned and operated by its proprietor Mr. Arun Sharma and is using the identical mark 'CROSSFIT' in respect of identical services relating to gym and fitness. The Plaintiff acquired knowledge of the use of the said mark by the Defendant in September, 2020. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant has been prominently displaying the mark 'CROSSFIT' at its premises, literature, online pages as hashtags since March, 2018. The mark 'CROSSFIT' as used by the Defendant is depicted below:

6. The Defendant was also using the mark 'CROSSFIT' on various online directories and social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram,Justdial, Fitternity etc. The screenshots of the Defendant's web pages using the mark 'CROSSFIT' have been placed on record and some of them are reproduced below:

7. In these circumstances, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit. Prior to filing of the present suit, the Plaintiff also attempted pre-litigation mediation in August, 2021. However, the Defendant did not appear. A legal notice dated 29th September, 2020 was also issued by the Plaintiff, but the same was not replied to by the Defendant.

8. The matter was listed before the Court for the first time on 29th October, 2021. On the said date, summons and notice were issued by the Court. An ex parte ad-interim injunction was also granted by the Court, vid