Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Ramada International,inc. – Appellant
Versus
La-ramada World Private Limited & Anr. – Respondents
CS(COMM) 470 of 2021, I.A. 16225 of 2021, I.A. 4182 of 2022 & I.A. 7855 of 2023
Decided On : 23-08-2023
Trademark Infringement - Injunction Orders - Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC - [RAMADA] - [Trademark Infringement] - [Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC] - [Summary: The court discussed the repeated breaches of injunction orders by the defendants in a trademark infringement case. The defendants were found guilty of contumacious and wilful disobedience of the injunction orders, leading to the court directing the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within a specified period as a corrective action.]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit alleging trademark infringement by the defendants. The court issued injunction orders restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff's trademark and related domain names. The defendants repeatedly breached the injunction orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the defendants guilty of contumacious and wilful disobedience of the injunction orders.
Issues: Repeated breaches of injunction orders, contumacious and wilful disobedience by the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The defendants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs within a specified period as a corrective action for their contumacious and wilful disobedience.
Final Decision: The court directed the defendant to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs within a period of four weeks. Failure to comply would result in the defendant being taken into custody to suffer incarceration in civil prison for a week.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
C. Hari Shankar, J.
I.A. 16225/2021, I.A. 4182/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC)
1. This is a gross case, in which the order of injunction, passed by this Court on 23 September 2021 was repeatedly breached by the defendants (Defendant 2 being the sole director of Defendant 1) with absolute impunity.
2. CS (COMM) 470/2021, the suit in which all these IAs have been filed and which is presently under consideration before this Court, was instituted by the plaintiff Ramada International, Inc. against Defendant 1, La-Ramada World Pvt. Ltd. and Defendant 2, a director and majority shareholder in Defendant 1, alleging infringement, by the defendants, of the trademark RAMADA, registered in favour of the plaintiff, the earliest registration of the said mark in favour of the plaintiff being of 8 October 1991. Additionally, the plaintiff also objected to the domain names <laramadaworld.com>, <laramadaworld.net.in> and <laramadaworld.online> whereunder the defendants were operating the websites https://laramadaworld.com/, http://laramadaworld.net.in and https://laramadaworld.online. The plaintiff also alleged that the name of the hotel operated by Defendant 1, "La Ramada World Resort and Spa" infringed the plaintiff's registered RAMADA trademark.
3. Finding prima facie merit in the plaintiff's grievance, this Court, while issuing summons in the suit on 23 September 2021, also issued notice in I.A. 12451/2021, filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, and restrained the defendants, their partners, proprietors, etc. "from using in any manner the plaintiff's trade mark RAMADA or any other mark which is deceptively or confusingly similar to the said mark including but not limited to the impugned marks LA RAMADA, LA RAMADA WORLD, LA RAMADA WORLD RESORT & SPA, [IMG], etc." Defendant 1 was also directed "to take steps to change the company's name `La-Ramada World Pvt. Ltd.' forthwith." Steps for changing or suspending of the infringing domain names <laramadaworld.com>, <laramadaworld.net.in> and <laramadaworld.online> were also directed to be taken within two weeks.
4. Despite the defendant having been put on notice regarding the passing of the aforesaid order in accordance with the procedure envisaged by Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC, no steps were taken by the defendant to comply with the directions issued by this Court on 23 September 2021, even in respect of suspension of the impugned domain names. The domain names were suspended by the concerned domain name Registrars only on steps in that regard being taken by the plaintiff. The domain name
5. On 22 November 2021, i.e. a day prior to the suspension of the domain names <laramadaworld.com> and <laramadaworld.online>, Defendant 2 got a new domain name <lrwworld.com> registered and started a new website www.lrwworld.com , which was identical to the injuncted website laramadaworld.com. it is pointed out by Mr. Balayan, the caption "La Ramada World Private Limited" prominently figured. Additionally, the website made several references to the plaintiff's registered trademarks as well as to the other marks, the use of which was specifically injuncted by this Court vide order dated 23 September 2021.
6. The plaintiff, in the circumstances, moved I.A. 16225/2021 for suspending the website www.lrwworld.com.
7. Vide order dated 14 December 2021, this Court extended the operation of the injunction order dated 23 September 2021 to the new website www.lrwworld.com and issued notice in I.A. 16225/2021.
8. Consequent thereto, the website www.lrwworld.com was suspended on 9 February, 2022 by the domain name registrar. Within two days, Defendant 2 proceeded to launch yet another website `lrw.co.in', in the name of Mr. Kumar Sambhav, a director of Defendant 1. On the last date of hearing, Mr. Balayan had taken this Court through the relevant pages of the
Contumacious and wilful disobedience of injunction orders can lead to corrective actions such as monetary deposits or incarceration.
Willful disobedience of court orders, even if later complied with, can lead to significant penalties to uphold the authority of the court.
Power to order civil imprisonment under Order XXXIX Rule 2A curtails an individual's fundamental right, albeit through a process of law.
In contempt proceedings, proof beyond reasonable doubt is required, and willful disobedience must be established. When two views are possible, the element of willfulness vanishes as it involves a men....
The plaintiff's rights as the registered proprietor of a well-known trademark were upheld, and the court applied the principles of trademark law to establish infringement and passing off by the defen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of the interim injunction order and the importance of preventing diversion of traffic from the plaintiff's website to that of a compe....
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
