The court affirmed that summary judgments are appropriate when there is no genuine issue for trial, enabling expedient resolutions in trademark infringement cases.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. (Oral)

I.A. 8861/2022 (under Chapter XVA Rule 1 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 read with Section 151 of the CPC, by Plaintiffs)

1. Present application has been preferred on behalf of the Plaintiffs under Chapter XVA Rule 1 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 read with Section 151 CPC, 1908 for a summary judgment against the Defendant.

2. Issue notice.

3. Mr. Abhishek Saket, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Defendant and, on instructions, submits that Defendant has no objection to the application being allowed and the suit being decreed.

4. Present suit was filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant seeking to restrain the Defendant from infringing the Plaintiffs' trademarks `HETTICH' and the HETTICH logo , and and restraint against passing off as well as for delivery up, damages, etc.

5. It is averred by the Plaintiffs that the trade name and trademark HETTICH owes its origin to its founding father, way back in the year 1888. Plaintiffs are a part of diversified group of companies, having operations in multiple countries across the world and engaged in manufacturing, marketing and selling furniture, fittings, door hinges, runners, etc., which has led to the said mark becoming distinctive of Plaintiffs' products and Plaintiffs' immense goodwill and reputation has strongly vested in the trademark HETTICH. Plaintiffs have multiple trademark registrations in the trademarks in over 76 countries with the earliest registration in Germany dating back to 1961.

6. The Defendant is a retail store engaged in sale of hardware products including furniture fixtures and components. Plaintiffs learnt on 29.07.2014 that Defendant is engaged in selling counterfeit HETTICH products, whereupon the present suit was filed.

7. On 01.09.2014, ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted by this Court and a Local Commissioner was appointed, whose report bears testimony to the fact that Defendant was in possession of counterfeit products bearing the HETTICH trademarks.

8. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that in the written statement filed by the Defendant, the only defence taken is that it has not engaged in procuring or selling the counterfeit products but has sold those which were available in the store believing them to be genuine products emanating from the Plaintiffs. Since the Defendant has not sought to challenge the Plaintiffs' exclusive rights over the HETTICH trademarks, it has no basis to resist a decree of permanent injunction. In view of this, there remains no need to record evidence to determine whether the Plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the HETTICH trademarks or whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree restraining the Defendant from selling counterfeit products under the said trademark.

9. It is thus the contention of the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs that the Defendant has no real prospect of defending the claims of infringement and resisting a decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant and the relief should be summarily decided in favour of the Plaintiffs.

10. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

11. Aptly encapsulated the case of Plaintiffs is that trademark and trade name, `HETTICH', owes its origin to Plaintiffs' founding father, Mr. Karl- Hettich, who had developed and mechanized the production of anchor escapements for Black-Forest cuckoo clocks in the year 1888. This business legacy was carried forward by Mr. August Hettich, who had developed a production line for piano hinges in the year 1928