The unrebutted assertions in the plaint, accompanied by the defendants' non-cooperation and abstention from participating in the proceedings, can indicate a lack of substantial defense and lead to a judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff.

ORDER (Oral)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

I.A. 8603/2023(under Order XIII A Rule 3 and 4 of CPC)

1. Summons were issued in the suit on 19 December 2018.

2. The written statements, filed by the defendants, were struck off the record on 8 November 2019.

3. On account of repeated non-appearance, the defendants have also been proceeded ex-parte by order dated 13 February 2023.

4. There has been no appearance on behalf of the defendants even thereafter and there is no appearance on behalf of the defendants today either.

5. In the circumstances, the plaintiff has moved IA 8603/2023, under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) as amended by the Commercial Courts Act 2015, for passing a judgment and decree in terms of prayers in the suit.

6. The suit alleges infringement as well as passing off, by the defendants, of its products as the products of the plaintiff. It is alleged that the plaintiff is a reputed name in the field of, inter alia, perfumes, and is the holder of the following registrations in India:

7. The plaint asserts that the plaintiff's trade mark "Calvin Klein" was founded and adopted on the basis of the name of its founder in 1967 since which time the plaintiff has been using the said mark, as well as both in a whole, in its own as well as abbreviated "CK" form. The plaintiff has also been representing its mark in a particular fashion which has been indelibly associated with the identity of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's marks are represented thus:

8. The plaintiff claims that, under the afore-said marks, it sells a wide variety of fragrances which have become extremely popular, including "CK one" "CK one SHOCK", "ETERNITY" and "Euphoria".

9. It is also claimed that the special stylised manner in which the word "CK" and "Calvin Klein" are used constitute original artistic works within the meaning of the Indian Copyright Act 1957 and are entitled to protection.

10. The plaintiff also claims to be operating the website www.calvinklein.com, through which it disseminates information regarding its activities and its products.

11. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendants are, through the website www.perfumery.co.in and www.unboxed.in using the plaintiff's mark for their products and are also selling, for commercial value, testers of the plaintiff's products which are only intended to enable a prospective customer to be able to sample the fragrance before deciding to purchase it. Such testers are never meant to be sold for commercial value and, by doing so, the defendants are indulging in an unfair trade practice. Besides, such testers are being sold by the defendants, masquerading them as perfumes of the plaintiff for sale, thereby, luring customers into paying money for such testers which are otherwise not to be commercially dispensed.

12. It is also alleged, in para 23 of the plaint, that the defendants have dishonestly and with malafide intent started adopting and using the plaintiff's marks [IMG], [IMG], ck one and [IMG].

13. The defendants are stated to be marketing and selling their products using the said marks and specimen photographs of the said products have been filed along with the plaint.

14. It is in these circumstances that the plaintiff has instituted the present plaint before this Court, with the following prayers:

"39. Under the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Plaintiff most respe