Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 48733

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

2025:DHC:5834

CS(COMM) 862/2023 with I.A. 24140/2023 and I.A. 11635/2025

MS VEERJI RESTAURANT PRIVATE LIMITED .....Plaintiff
versus
YASH RAI & ORS. .....Defendants

Through: Mr. S. Nithin, Advocate.
Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

Date of decision: 8th July, 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Nithin
For the Respondents: None

A court may grant a summary judgment in commercial trademark disputes under Order XIII-A of the CPC when the defendant fails to contest the claims, demonstrating no real prospect of a successful defense, thereby rendering a trial unnecessary to achieve a fair and just result.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 135(1) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XIII-A - Infringement of trademark and copyright - Passing off - Summary judgment - Summary judgment is appropriate when defendants do not contest the suit and have no real prospect of successfully defending the claim - Courts should not permit defendants who evade court proceedings to benefit from their non-appearance - Financial damages and costs awarded where infringement is established and no defense is filed. (Paras 34, 35, 36, 39, 40)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, a restaurant chain established in 2020 (successor to a proprietorship since 2016), sought a permanent injunction against the defendants for using marks identical or deceptively similar to its trademark 'VEERJI MALAI CHAAP WALE'. The defendants engaged in the same business, and despite being served with summons, failed to contest the suit, leading to an ex-parte injunction and subsequent summary judgment application.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the defendants' failure to file a written statement or deny documents resulted in the admission of the plaintiff's allegations. Finding the defendants had no real prospects of success and that trial would serve no purpose, the court granted a summary judgment, awarding damages and costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- against each of the defendants (total Rs. 5,00,000/-).

Issues: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment in a trademark and copyright infringement suit when the defendants fail to enter an appearance or contest the suit.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Order XIII-A CPC, commercial courts may pass summary judgments if the defendant lacks a real prospect of defending the claim. Evasive conduct by defendants who stay away from proceedings should not be rewarded, and thus, damages and costs are appropriate when infringement is established through admitted documents.

Result: Suit decreed in favor of the plaintiff; summary judgment granted with damages awarded.

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of trade mark and copyright and passing off of their services as those of the plaintiff along with other ancillary reliefs.

CASE SET UP BY THE PLAINTIFF

2. The plaintiff, a company incorporated on 9th November 2020, is one of the leading service providers in the business of food and restaurant and runs a leading restaurant chain under the mark VEERJI MALAI CHAAP WALE (hereinafter ‘plaintiff’s mark’). Prior to the plaintiff’s incorporation, its business was carried out as a proprietorship concern in the name of M/s Veerji Malai Chaap Wale.

3. The plaintiff’s predecessor-in-title conceived the Punjabi word VEERJI, which is frequently used as a sign of respect for one’s brother, in relation to its business and adopted the inherently distinctive trade mark VEERJI MALAI CHAAP WALE in the year 2016 to distinguish its services from those of others.

4. The plaintiff has approximately 70 branches of its restaurant under the plaintiff’s mark across India and has achieved considerable sales in a very short span of time. The plaintiff’s net sales for the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23 have been provided in paragraph no.12 of the plaint. Pertinently, the plaintiff recorded net sales of Rs. 3,61,39,658.69/- in the financial year 2022-23.

5. The plaintiff has been providing its services and promoting its business across India through its website, accessible at www.veerjimalaichaapwale.com. The plaintiff is also listed on various food delivery platforms such as Zomato and Swiggy and has an extensive presence on social media platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, etc., resulting in substantial public exposure.

6. The plaintiff spends a significant amount of time, money and resources to advertise its services under the plaintiff’s mark across India through various print media such as newspapers, magazines, trade journals, leaflets, etc. Recently, the plaintiff has also engaged the famous actor and wrestler Mr. Vindu Dara Singh as its brand ambassador. The plaintiff’s business has featured on various food blogs and vlogs.

7. The plaintiff’s advertisement and sales promotional figures for the financial years 2018-19 to 2022-23 have been provided in paragraph no.13 of the plaint. Pertinently, the plaintiff’s sales promotional expenditure in the financial year 2022-23 amounts to a total of Rs. 400,986.34/-.

8. By virtue of prior use, immense popularity and sales, and extensive promotions, the plaintiff’s mark and other VEERJI-formative marks have acquired substantial goodwill and reputation across India and the members of trade and public associate the same with the plaintiff alone and no one else.

9. In addition to its common law rights over the plaintiff’s mark by virtue of the aforesaid, the plaintiff has obtained several registrations for various VEERJI-formative marks including device marks. A list of the plaintiff’s trade mark applications and registrations is provided in paragraph no.14 of the plaint.

10. The plaintiff is also the registered owner of the copyright in the artistic work vested in the label. The details of the plaintiff’s copyright registration have been provided in paragraph no.15 of the plaint.

11. The plaintiff, in September 2023, came to know about the defendants who are using trade marks in relation to their respective businesses which are identical with/ deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark.

12. The defendants no.1, 2, 5 and 6 are engaged in identical businesses of restaurant and food delivery joint under the mark VEER JI MALAI CHAAP WALE in Lalghati (Bhopal), Moti Nagar (Delhi), Raipur, and Haridwar, respectively. The defendant no.3 is engaged in an identical business of restaurant and food delivery joint under the mark THE VEER JI MALAI CHAAP WALE in Moradabad (Uttar Pradesh). The defendant no.4 is engaged in an identical business of restaur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document