Delhi High Court
Times Internet Ltd. vs Just Flowers And Anr. on 24 October, 2007
Equivalent citations: MIPR 2007 (3) 525
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
Page 2911
1. The plaintiff (Times Internet Limited) is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and belongs to the Times Group of Companies. The present suit was filed against the defendants seeking a permanent injunction restraining them from using the mark "eindiatimes" and the domain name wherein "indiatimes" was used as a part thereof. The decree was also sought for transfer of the domain name "eindiatimes.com" to the plaintiff and for recovery of damages to the extent of Rs. 20 lacs.
2. By an order dated 05.02.2004 this Court had passed interim orders restraining the defendants from using the domain name "eindiatimes.com" or any other domain name which equated the mark "indiatimes" or any other domain name which was similar to the plaintiff's domain name "indiatimes.com". After service of summons, the defendants appeared and even issues were framed on 23.03.2006. On 12.07.2005 admission/denial of documents was completed. Thereafter on and from 17.11.2006, the defendants stopped appearing. The defendants were directed to be proceeded against ex parte by virtue of an order dated 09.10.2007. The plaintiff has also filed the evidence affidavit of Shri Manish Jain who is the Company Secretary of the plaintiff and the defendants had stopped appearing when the matter had been fixed for cross examination of this witness. The plaintiff's documents have been marked as Exhibits PW1/1 to PW1/11.
3. The evidence of PW1 essentially reiterates the averments made in the plaint. The case for the plaintiff is quite straightforward. The plaintiff is the owner of the mark "indiatimes" for which the registration is pending. However, the plaintiff already has a domain name registration. The following domain name registered in its name:- indiatimes.com which has been registered in the plaintiff's name since 22.11.1996. The defendants have started using the mark "eindiatimes" and they have a registration of a domain name "eindiatimes.com" in the name of defendant No. 1. This has been registered in the name of defendant No. 1 w.e.f. 04.02.2002.
4. Since the averments made in the plaint are supported by the evidence of PW1 who has filed the said affidavit and the same is uncontroverter, the case of the plaintiff stands proved. The plaintiff's case is that it is the proprietor of the mark "indiatimes" as well as of the domain name "indiatimes.com". The defendants have adopted the mark "eindiatimes" and have got the domain name "eindiatimes.com" registered in their name which was deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's mark and domain name. It has also been established that the defendant Nos 1 and 2 have no connection with "indiatimes" and do not carry on any business under the name of "indiatimes" which is a mark belonging to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for injunction as well as for a decree on damages. However, no evidence has been led with regard to the extent of damages that have been incurred by the plaintiff. In these Page 2912 circumstances, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that as decided by this Court in various earlier decisions, punitive damages have also been awarded in such cases. He referred to the following decisions:
1. Asian Paints (India) Ltd v. Balaji Paints ;
2. Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava and Anr. 2005 (30) PTC 3(Del);
3. Lachhman Das Behari Lal v. Shri Ghanshyam Das Jetha Nand and Ors. in CS (OS) 1205/2006 delivered on 06.09.2007.
5. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a) and (b) as contained in paragraph 31 of the plaint. Insofar as the decree of damages is concerned, I award punitive damages to the extent of Rs. 3 lacs in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
The suit is accordingly decreed with costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
