The court emphasized the importance of territorial jurisdiction, rejected lack of awareness as a defense for trademark infringement, and quantified damages based on the appellant-defendant's repeat infringement and sale of infringing products on an interactive website.

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J.

1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the Order dated 24th January, 2023 passed by the District Court, Tis Hazari, Delhi in CS (COMM) No. 2057/2019, whereby a decree for permanent injunction was passed restraining the appellant-defendant from manufacturing, trading, selling, marketing, offering for sale through online shopping portals or dealing in any other way, any goods including shoes and other accessories and/or any other goods under the respondent-plaintiff's `Form Strip logo' [IMG] as its logo/trademark or any other mark/logo which is deceptively similar to the respondent-plaintiff's `Form Strip logo' [IMG] which may amount to infringement of the respondent-plaintiff's registered trademarks as mentioned in the plaint. Further, appellant- defendant was directed to ensure delivery of all the infringing finished/unfinished materials bearing the respondent-plaintiff's trademark `Form Strip logo' [IMG] i.e. the goods seized by the Local Commissioner to the authorised representative of the respondent-plaintiff. The respondent-plaintiff was also awarded damages to the tune of Rupees three lakhs along with costs of the suit.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT-DEFENDANT

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant stated that the Trial Court had erred in not appreciating that the design, on appellant-defendant's product i.e. product in question, which respondent-plaintiff claimed to be identical to its registered trademark was nothing but a normal design and that the appellant-defendant was not aware that the same was registered in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. He stated that if the appellant-defendant had known that the said design was a registered logo of the respondent- plaintiff, the appellant-defendant would have never used the same.

3. He further stated that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate that it had no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the subject-suit. He submitted that the finding of the Trial Court on the issue of territorial jurisdiction was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Indian Performing Rights Society Vs Sanjay Dalia & Anr, [2015] 10 SCC 161. He emphasised that the witness of the respondent-plaintiff [PW-1] had deposed that, "I have no proof and I do not say that defendant was also selling his goods in offline market." the witness further stated that, "I do not have any proof that defendant has ever sold infringed goods in Delhi".

4. He also stated that the Trial Court had incorrectly interpreted the language of the issue no.4 i.e. issue with regard to relief of damages, and had wrongly awarded the damages, without appreciating that the issue no.4 was with respect to the entitlement to damages and not the quantum of damages. He submitted that the decision of the Trial Court awarding damages to the tune of Rupees Three lakhs was unreasonable, baseless and beyond the issue/s framed and such part of the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside.

5. He contended that the plaintiff had failed to produce any evidence to show that the Power of Attorney (`POA') executed by the plaintiff in favour of PW-1 was valid at the time of filing of the suit. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the cross-examination of PW-1 which is reproduced hereinbelow:

"the MARK PW-1/9 is executed by........ who are also constituted attorney of plaintiff as I m....... I have no knowledge that how he has authority to execute MARK PW-1/9............ I have no knowledge whether any board resolution was passed or not in this regard.....I receive fixed salary from RNA Law Firm for acting as power of attorney holder of plaintiff company....... it is correct that I have filed many cases similar to present suit for plaintiff and I have got many of them settled with opposite parties after taking settlement amount in favour of RNA (Vol. Not in my name)"

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-PLAINTIFF

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-pla