The entitlement of the Plaintiff to take legal action with respect to infringement of the marks, as per the licence agreement Ex.P6, was a central legal principle established in the judgment.

This Civil Suit is filed, seeking a Judgment and Decree, for the following reliefs:-

(a) permanent injunction and perpetual injunction restraining the Defendant, its principal officers/partners/servants/representatives/agents or any one acting on behalf of them or claiming any right through or under them, from unauthorized marketing, advertising, promoting, displaying or selling directly or indirectly any of the Plaintiff's products on any of the online e-commerce websites including www.amazon.in.

(b) mandatory injunction directing the Defendant to render its accounts exhibiting the amounts/profits the Defendant had earned by unlawfully selling the Plaintiff's products on any of the online e-commerce websites including www.amazon.in.

(c) decree for delivery up to the Plaintiff for destruction of all packaging, labels, blocks, dyes, stickers, signage, advertising materials, all types of stationary and brochures and all other infringing materials of the Defendant, bearing the words 'OPPO Mobiles”.

(d) preliminary decree in favour of the Plaintiff directing the Defendant to render account of profits made through use of the 'OPPO Mobiles' mark and a final decree thereafter be passed in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of profits that have been found to be made by the Defendant after it had rendered accounts.

(e) for costs.

2. The case of the Plaintiff is as follows:-

(a). The Plaintiff is a Company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered Office at Haryana. The Plaintiff is in the field of mobile industry in India with licence to use the mark OPPO and sell the OPPO products within the territory of India. The Plaintiff is an affiliate of global electronics and technology service provider in over 20 countries. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of mobile phones in India. The Plaintiff is the authorized user of the trademark OPPO in India, having registered the same in India.

(b). The Defendant is engaged in the business of selling mobile phones in the name and style of M/s. Samaira Online Enterprises, having its Office at Chennai. The Defendant is indulging in unauthorized acts of marketing, displaying, offering for sale at low price and exhibiting the Plaintiff's products by publication on the e-commerce websites including www.amaozn.in. The Defendant is depreciating the Plaintiff's market by publishing or offering the products of the Plaintiff online without any authority or agreement. The Defendant is impliedly projecting a picture as if they are authorized dealers and licensee of the Plaintiff. The advertisement of the Defendant offering the products of the Plaintiff at a low price on the e-commerce websites is not in comparison with the price being offered by the registered dealers of the Plaintiff, thereby causing distress in the unique business model of the Plaintiff.

(c). The Plaintiff had registered the trademark OPPO both in the form of logo and word mark in India in favour of Sky Capital Limited, bearing trademark No.2591198, dated 4.9.2013, with Journal No.1757, dated 8.8.2016 and trademark No.1100623 dated 29.4.2002 with Journal No.1333-1, dated 15.08.2005, respectively for the logo and word mark. By virtue of long and continuous use, the Plaintiff has acquired global repute and good will in the market of their OPPO products with an established name in the WIPO Global Brand Database. The Plaintiff is also spending huge monies towards advertisements. The Plaintiff has been title sponsor for the ICC Asia cup and ICC World T20. The Plaintiff had already spent Rs.140 crores over the period of last three financial years towards promotional and advertising activities. The average sales turnover of the Plaintiff for the financial years 2014-2015 and 2015 -2016 was Rs.1000 crores.

(d). The Plaintiff found that the price at which unauthorized products are sold on the e-commerce websites is too low as compared to the price on which the Plaintiff's