Trademark infringement occurs when identical or confusingly similar marks serve identical services, creating potential consumer confusion.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. Summons were issued in the suit and notice was issued in I.A. 2625/2020, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC on 25th February, 2020.

2. The only date on which appearance was forthcoming, for any of the defendants, was on 17th July, 2020, when Defendant 2 was represented. Prior thereto and thereafter, there has been no appearance on behalf of the defendants. Written statement has also not been filed.

3. Clearly, therefore, this suit is not being contested.

4. The plaintiff claims to have established in 2009 and to be providing spa services under the name and style "TATTVA SPA" and to be operating under the domain name www.tattvaspa.com, registered in 2009. The plaint further avers that services of the plaintiff are available in Agra, Aurangabad, Bengaluru, Chennai, Faridabad, Goa, Gurgaon, Guwahati, Haridwar, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Jaisalmer, Jim Corbett, Khajuraho, Kandla, Kodaikanal, Kochi, Lonavala, Mumbai, Mysore, Nainital, Noida, Ooty, Patna, Pune, Raipur, Rishikesh, Udaipur and Yercaud. The defendants are stated to be operating in Goa where, too, therefore, the plaintiff's services are available.

5. The plaintiff holds the following registrations:

Trade Mark	Registration Number	Registration Date	Class
	1879286	November 03, 2009 44
Services: Spa and Salon services
TATTVA SPA	2462008	January 17, 2013	44
Services: Spa and Salon services

6. These registrations are stated to be valid and subsisting as on date. By virtue of Section 31 of the Trademarks Act, they are, therefore, accorded prima facie validity.

7. The aforesaid registrations had originally been granted to Mr. Karan Goyal, and were assigned to the plaintiff vide Assignment Agreement dated 15th July, 2014. The plaintiff asserts that, over a period of time, by dint of continuous and uninterrupted use, it has amassed a formidable reputation within the spa sector and that the aforesaid marks, registered in the plaintiff's favour, are invariably associated with the spa services provided by the plaintiff in the perception of the public.

8. The plaint also provides figures of the steady increase in earnings from the services provided by the plaintiff which, from a figure of Rs.37,66,868/- in 2012, have increased to Rs.10,98,33,570/- in 2019. Figures of the advertising and promotional expenses incurred by the plaintiff are also provided in the plaint in a tabular format thus:

9. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that, therefore, the plaintiff's mark is a "well known mark" within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(zg) of the Trademarks Act.

10. The defendant is also providing spa services under the name "TATVA". It operates under the domain name www.tatvaspa.com. A comparison of the marks of the plaintiff and the defendant is provided in the plaint thus:

Plaintiff's Trade Marks	Defendants' Impugned Marks
Word Mark/Trade Name TATTVA SPA	Impugned Word Mark/Trade Name TATVA SPA
Logo Marks	Impugned Logo Marks
Domain Name www.tattvaspa.com	Impugned Domain Name www.tatvaspa.com

11. There can be no gainsaying the fact that the words "TATTVA" and "TATVA" are, phonetically, not merely similar, but identical. As the defendant is providing services identical to those provided by the plaintiff, there is every possibility of the public being misled regarding the services provided by the defendant as those of the plaintiff or at least to draw an association between them. The marks being phonet