The plaintiff's entitlement to an injunction against the defendants due to infringement of registered trademarks.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

I.A. 7356/2023 (seeking condonation of delay)

1. By this application, the defendant seeks condonation of delay of 29 days in filing reply to I.A. 16954/2022.

2. The application is not opposed by Ms. Nautiyal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff.

3. Accordingly, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned.

I.A. 7357/2023 (seeking condonation of delay)

4. This application seeks condonation of delay of 168 days, in filing reply to I.A. 16848/2021.

5. Ms. Nautiyal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff does not oppose this application.

6. Accordingly, the application is allowed.

I.A. 16955/2022 (under Order XIIIA read with Section 151 of the CPC)

7. This is an application under Order XIIIA of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, seeking decreeing of the suit vis-a-vis Defendants 2 to 4 in terms of the prayers contained in the suit.

8. The grievance of the plaintiff, in the present suit, relates to alleged infringement, by the defendants, of the plaintiff's registered trademarks, which stand reproduced in a tabular fashion in para 27 of the plaint. The plaintiff holds registrations of the following marks:

9. It is alleged that the Defendants 1 to 4 are infringing the aforenoted registered marks of the plaintiff by using the marks which incorporate "COMFORT INN", "COMFORT" or the plaintiff's registered trademarks in part or in whole.

10. Mr. Chaitanya Kaushik, learned Counsel for Defendant 1 has drawn my attention to paras 25 and 26 of the order dated 7th July 2022, passed by this Court in the present proceedings, which read thus:

"25. One of the issues that arises in the present suit is whether the Plaintiff has rights in the word/mark `COMFORT', `SUITES', `INN' per se or are the rights in the combination marks. A perusal of the plaint and documents placed on record shows that the Plaintiff has various registrations.

26. The question as to the extent of the monopoly that the Plaintiff shall be entitled to enjoy owing to the said registrations would be required to be heard further."

11. Ms. Abhilasha Nautiyal, learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the observations contained in the afore-extracted paragraphs from the order dated 7th July 2022 would not adversely impact her request for decreeing of the suit qua Defendants 2 to 4, as she is restricting her relief, qua the said defendants, to their using the registered trademarks of the plaintiff in whole, as they stand registered.

12. As such, qua the said defendants, the issue of whether the plaintiff can claim monopoly over part of the registered trademarks would not arise for consideration.

13. Defendants 2 to 4 have remained absent throughout the present proceedings. No written statement or other response has been filed by the said defendants either in response to the suit or in response to any of the applications filed therewith. By order dated 2nd September 2022, the right of Defendants 2 to 4 to file written statement stands struck off.

14. Even today, the said defendants are not represented.

15. Clearly, therefore, Defendants 2 to