CS(COMM) 528/2018

Page 1 of 16

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 19.10.2022

Date of decision: 17.11.2022

+

CS(COMM) 528/2018

AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO & ORS

.....Plaintiffs

Through:

Mr.

Siddhant

Chamola

&

Mr.Karan, Advocates

versus

S.SURA & ORS

.....Defendants

Through:

None

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

1. This Suit has been filed by the plaintiffs, originally against 12

defendants praying, for the following reliefs:-

Digitally Signed By:RENUKA

NEGI

Signing Date:21.11.2022

14:13:37

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 528/2018

Page 2 of 16

2. For the sake of clarity, I shall be referring to the defendants by

their original numbers in the present judgment.

3. By an order dated 07.10.2005, an ad-interim ex-parte injunction

was granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants,

restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale

the buses under the trade mark ‘VOLVO’ or any other mark deceptively

similar to the trade mark of the plaintiffs. Subsequently by an order

dated 26.02.2007, this ad-interim order was confirmed by this Court.

4. On 29.05.2007, the suit was decreed against the defendant nos.1 to

3 and the defendant nos.11 and 12 on the basis of a settlement arrived at

between the said parties.

Digitally Signed By:RENUKA

NEGI

Signing Date:21.11.2022

14:13:37

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 528/2018

Page 3 of 16

5. Further, by the above order the defendant nos. 4 to 7 and 9 were

proceeded ex-parte.

6. The suit was decreed in terms of the paragraph 31 (i) to (iii) of the

Plaint reproduced hereinabove against the original defendant nos.8 and

10, by an order dated 07.09.2009. The said order further directed the said

defendants to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty

Five Thousand Only) as costs in the suit.

7. I may herein note that as the suit had already been settled and

decreed between the original defendant nos.1 to 3 and defendant nos.11

and 12, the order dated 07.09.2009 had decreed the suit as against the

defendant nos.5 and 7 of the Amended Memo of Parties, as was also

clarified by an order dated 28.05.2010 of this Court.

8. The plaintiffs, thereafter, examined Col. J.K. Sharma (Retd.) as

PW-1 and closed their evidence, as recorded in the order dated

20.03.2012.

9. From the above narration, it would be apparent that the present suit

survives only against the original defendant nos.4 to 7 and 9.

10. At one stage, as the original defendant nos.8 and 10 were

contesting the suit, vide order dated 10.02.2009, the following issues

were framed:

Digitally Signed By:RENUKA

NEGI

Signing Date:21.11.2022

14:13:37

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 528/2018

Page 4 of 16

11. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff

and perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as under:

Issue No.1

12. Col. J.K. Sharma (Retd.)/PW-1 has proved the authorization for

him to sign and present the present suit on behalf of the plaintiffs, by way

of the documents exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/9.

13. The issue no.1 is therefore decided in favour of the plaintiffs and

against the defendants.

Issue Nos. 2 to 4

14. The plaintiffs in the present suit are companies organized under the

laws of Sweden. (Ex.PW1/5, PW1/6 and PW1/7). The plaintiff no.1 was

incorporated on 05.05.1915 and commenced the business of assembling

cars in April, 1927 and of trucks in the year 1928 under the trade mark

‘VOLVO’.

15. On 26.02.1999, the plaintiff no. 1 assigned the rights, interest and

title held by it in the trade marks that consist of or contain the word

‘VOLVO’, including the device marks, and the trade mark ‘PENTA’, by

Digitally Signed By:RENUKA

NEGI

Signing Date:21.11.2022

14:13:37

Signature Not Verified

CS(COMM) 528/2018

Page 5 of 16

way of a Global Deed of Assignment, in favour of the plaintiff no. 2. A

supplementary Deed of Assignment dated 23.03.2001 was also