TEJAS KARIA, J. (ORAL)

1. I.A. 29751/2025 has been filed on behalf of the Plaintiff under Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking pronouncement of judgment against the Defendant.

2. The Plaintiff has filed the present Suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining infringement of its Trade Marks, ‘TOMMY HILFIGER’, ‘TOMMY’, ‘TOMMY SPORT’, ‘TOMMY GIRL’, ‘DREAMING TOMMY HILFIGER’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’,

‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, ‘ ’, and ‘ ’ (“Plaintiff’s Marks”) passing off, dilution, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

3. Vide Order dated 20.12.2018, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was passed restraining the Defendant, its partners, if any, officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists and representatives from manufacturing, selling and/or offering for sale, advertising, or directly or indirectly dealing in any manner, in any goods bearing the registered Trade Mark, ‘TOMMY HILFIGER’, or any other similar Mark.

4. Vide Order dated 07.03.2019, the bank accounts of the Defendant were directed to be frozen and since the Defendant had refused service of summons, the Defendant was directed to be served once again through WhatsApp, e-mail and SMS, as per the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (“Rules”). Vide Order dated 14.05.2019, it was recorded that the summons had been served to the Defendant. Vide Order dated 03.07.2019, the Defendant was proceeded ex-parte.

5. Due to non-compliance of the Order dated 07.03.2019, the Plaintiff filed I.A. 14365/2019 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC. Notice was issued in I.A. 14365/2019 on 16.10.2019 and it was directed that the notice shall also be served through the concerned Station House Officer. Vide Order dated 05.02.2020, it was recorded that the wife of the Defendant refused to accept service of the summons and accordingly, bailable warrants in the sum

of ₹10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) were issued against the Defendant, however, the bailable warrants could not be served against the Defendant as the Defendant had stopped residing at his address since 2017-18 and his wife was unaware of his whereabouts.

6. Vide Order dated 24.07.2023, fresh summons were issued to the Defendant on a new address based on the amended memo of parties filed by the Plaintiff, however, the Plaintiff could not serve the Defendant on the new address as well and accordingly, the Plaintiff was allowed to be served through substituted service.

7. Vide Order dated 30.07.2025, it was recorded that although the Defendant had been served through substituted service, the Defendant was still not appearing and, therefore, the Defendant was proceeded ex-parte. On 06.11.2025, the Plaintiff sought liberty to file an appropriate application under Order XIII Rule 10 of the CPC for pronouncement of judgment against the Defendant.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF

8. The learned Counsel for the Plaintiff made the following submissions:

8.1 The Plaintiff is engaged in designing and manufacturing high end apparels for men, women and children, and a wide range of licensed products such as footwear, accessories, fragrances and home furnishings under the Plaintiff’s Marks. The Plaintiff is a well-known American lifestyle brand which was founded by Mr. Tommy Hilfiger in 1985.

8.2 The Plaintiff has developed a reputation built upon providing high quality, designer products, as elaborated above. The

exclusivity of the Plaintiff’s products is part of its brand image and consumers associate its products with style and elegance combined with practicality and quality. Due to these reasons, the Plaintiff has been recording huge sales of its products all over the world.

8.3 The Plaintiff in 2003 entered into a strategic licensing agreement with the Ahmedabad-based Arvind Group to market its brand in India. Due to its booming success in India, the Plaintiff eventually expanded business and now has stores located in over 45 cities in India, including 19 stores in Delhi. The Plaintiff rig