Trademark infringement occurs when a party continues to use a trademark after termination of rights without defense, violating the owner's established rights and goodwill.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]

CS(COMM) 416/2020 & I.A. No. 10779/2021 (O-VIII R-10 of the CPC by the plaintiff)

1. The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts of profits, damages and delivery up against the defendants.

2. Vide order dated 6th October, 2020, this Court was pleased to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendants and directed the plaintiff to comply with provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, (CPC), 1908. In compliance thereof, the plaintiff had sent the complete set of the paper book which includes the pleadings, documents, applications and order dated 06th October, 2020 along with a compliance letter to the defendants on 8th October, 2020 through courier and on 9th October, 2020 through speed post. An affidavit of compliance in this regard was filed by plaintiff on 21st October, 2020.

3. Service was also affected on the defendants through email by the plaintiff on 7th October, 2020 and an affidavit of email service was also filed by the plaintiff on 21st October, 2020. Subsequently, summons were yet again served upon the defendant on 14th January, 2021 through email and speed post by the plaintiff and an affidavit of service was again filed by the plaintiff on 16th January, 2021.

4. The matter was listed before the Court on 21st January, 2021 and 5th July, 2021, however, the defendants neither appeared before the Court, nor filed any written statement. The statutory period of 120 days for filing written statement is already over and the defendants have forfeited their rights to file their written statement.

5. The present application under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on 17th August, 2021 with an advance copy served to the defendants through email. The said application was listed before this Court on 26th August, 2021 when this Court was pleased to issued notice to the defendant. As per the office noting, notice of the present application was served upon the defendant no. 1 through speed post on 20th September, 2021. Even defendant no. 2 was served with the notice of the application through email on 28th September, 2021.

6. Since the defendants despite service of the summons in suit and the notice issued in the present application have failed to appear or to file written submission/reply, they are proceeded ex-parte.

7. At this stage, counsel for the plaintiff gives up prayers (e) and (f) of the prayer clause of the suit and submits that the present suit maybe decreed qua reliefs (a) to (d) of the prayer clause, relief (g) to the extent of USD 22,000 along with interest @ 10% per annum as admitted by the defendants and costs of the suit.

8. I am of the opinion that no purpose would be served by directing the plaintiff to lead ex-parte evidence by filing affidavit of examination in chief. The plaint is duly supported by the affidavit of the plaintiff. Therefore, the counsel for the plaintiff has been heard on the merits of the case.

9. The relevant facts of the present case are that the plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the trademark "CENTURY 21", both as a standalone word mark and also as a house mark. Plaintiff is a prominent and globally renowned franchisor in the field of real estate and has been using the aforesaid trademark in the course of his business and is otherwise well- known in the field of real estate industry.

10. Plaintiff also has a global website www.century21.com which is also accessible in India and has been operating since 2