JUDGMENT

07.09.2017 SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (ORAL)

CS(COMM) 1194/2016

1. The Plaintiff has filed this Suit for infringement of Geographical Indication Under Section 22 of The Geographical Indications Of Goods (Registration And Protection) Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the GI Act) for restraining the Defendant from committing, inter-alia, acts of infringement of the Plaintiff‟s registered geographical indication “CHAMPAGNE” by using the name CHAMPAGNE in respect of non-alcoholic sparkling drinks.

2. Defendant has been served with the summons of the suit. None had appeared for the defendant on 30.01.2017. No Written Statement was filed within the statutory period. By order dated 30.01.2017, the right to file Written Statement was closed and the Defendant was proceeded ex-parte. None appeared for the Defendant thereafter on

04.09.2017 and even none appears today.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is willing to give up the reliefs of rendition of accounts and recovery of damages.

4. Learned counsel for the plaintiff relies on Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) as amended by The Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act , 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the Commercial Courts Act) to contend that as the defendant has failed to file Written Statement, it has made itself liable for a Decree of permanent Injunction.

5. The present Suit is a Commercial dispute as defined under the Commercial Courts Act. The provision of the CPC as amended by the Commercial Courts Act are applicable.

6. Order VIII rule 10 as amended and applicable to Commercial disputes reads as under:

“10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court.— Where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up. Provided further that no court shall make an order to extend the time provided under Rule 1 of this order for filing of the written statement.”

7. In view of the fact that the defendant has failed to appear and file the written statement, the Defendant is liable to be proceeded with under order VIII rule 10 of CPC.

8. The Plaint is verified and supported by affidavit and statement of truth of the Plaintiff affirming the contents of the plaint. The Plaintiff has also filed an affidavit under order XI rule 6(3) of CPC with regard to the electronic record.

9. By an ex-parte ad-interim order dated 01.09.2017, the Defendant, its officers, servants, agents and representatives were restrained from manufacturing, bottling, selling, offering for sale, marketing, advertising, supplying, distributing, importing, exporting, stocking and dealing in directly or indirectly in any manner whatsoever in India or abroad any product under the name „CHAMPAGNE‟ or by using any other expression or description which is indicative, thereby suggesting that the product is originating from the Champagne region of France. The said order was made absolute by order dated 03.01.2017.

10. In terms of order dated 01.09.2016, the local commissioner appointed to inspect the premises of the Defendant has submitted a report indicating that infringing products and labels were found at the premises of the Defendant. The infringing goods have been handed over to the Defendant on Superdari.

11. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that, this is a fit case, where instead of requiring the plaintiff to lead ex parte evidence, judgment can be pronounced forthwith against the Defendant.

12. The Plaintiff has pleaded that the Plaintiff is a public service body established by an Act of the French Parliament. It claims to be a semi-governmental body with one of i