Delhi High Court
Foresight Society Of Human ... vs Ashish Jain And Ors on 4 May, 2009
Author: Rekha Sharma
UNREPORTABLE
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
CS(OS) No.613/2007
Date of Decision: May 04, 2009
FORESIGHT SOCIETY OF HUMAN RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT
...... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Advocate
with Mr. Narinder Chaudhry, Advocate
VERSUS
ASHISH JAIN AND ORS ..... Defendants
Through: Defendants ex-parte.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? No
REKHA SHARMA, J.
This is a suit by the plaintiff, namely, Foresight Society of Human
Resources and Development against defendants No.1, 2 & 3 praying
for the following reliefs:-
"(i) An order of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and
against the defendants may be passed whereby restraining the
defendants, their servants, agents or any other person acting on
their behalf from copying/using the trademark of the plaintiff, i.e.
"F-TEC" Computer Education, in any manner/deceptive manner.
(ii) An order of permanent injunction in favour of plaintiff and
against the defendants whereby restraining the defendants, their
servants, agents or any other person acting on their behalf from
passing off any material/goods/articles bearing the above
trademark of the plaintiff in any manner or deceptive manner to
anyone.
(iii) A decree of damages be passed in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendants to the amount of Rs.20,05,000/-.
(iv) An order of rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned
by the defendants on account of copying and use of the
trademark of the plaintiff and a decree be passed in favour of the
plaintiff in the amount so ascertained.
(v) An order for deliver up all infringing materials including
pamphlets, books, boards, etc. bearing the impugned marks,
labels, patches, etc. and of blocks, dyes, stationery and any
other printed matter bearing the impugned marks.
(vi) An order for costs of the suit."
The facts are as under:-
The plaintiff is a Society registered and incorporated under the
provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860. The suit has been filed
through its duly constituted attorney, namely, Shri Sanjeev Sindhu.
The Society is involved in computer training/education development
programmes and is running about 120 computer education/training
centers all over India through its franchisees under the name and style
of "F-TEC Computer Education".
It is claimed that the plaintiff is running its centers for the last
number of years and from December 30, 2005 it has even got its trade
name "F-TEC" registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It is also
claimed that over the years, the plaintiff has acquired a reputed name
in the field of computer education/training programmes and about
35000 students are receiving training at its computer centers.
The details of the approximate expenses incurred by the plaintiff
in publicity and advertisement of the above trademark and the details
of the turnover/revenue generated from the year 2004 to 2007 are as
under:-
Year Total Revenue/Turnover Total expenses on
in Rs. advertisement in Rs.
2004-2005 10,13,05,858/- 90,55,452/-
2005-2006 12,09,73,733/- 1,12,90,812/-
2006-2007 11,00,50,016/- 1,25,85,657/-
Total 33,23,29,607/- 3,29,31,921/-
It is alleged by the plaintiff that one of its franchisees who is
running computer education center in the name of M/s Sky Infotech
situated at Fahan International School, behind B-3 Market, Yamuna
Vihar, Delhi informed on February 10, 2007 that the defendants have
infringed its trademark inasmuch as they are running computer
education center at B-2/19-A, behind B-Block Bus Stand, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi in the name and style of "F-TECH computer education". It is
further alleged that the trade name F-TECH adopted by the defendants
is deceptively similar to the trade name F-TEC of the plaintiff not only
in name but also in colour scheme, font, style and get-up. As per the
plaintiff, defendants by adopting the trade name F-TECH are riding on
its reputation and are defrauding the public at large.
Despite service of summons upon the defendants, none
appeared for defendants No.1 & 3 and it was only defendant No.2 who
responded to the summons.
During the course of proceedings, plaintiff entered into a
settlement with defendant No.2 and consequently, vis-à-vis him
withdrew the suit. As regards defendants No.1 & 3, they were
proceeded ex-parte.
The plaintiff in support of its case against defendants No.1 & 3
has filed affidavit by way of evidence of its duly constituted attorney,
Shri Sanjeev Sindhu. The said attorney has reiterated the facts as
stated in the plaint and has also proved on record the power of
attorney executed in his favour to institute the suit as Ex.PW-1/1. He
has also proved copy of Trademark Registration Certificate in favour of
the plaintiff dated December 30, 2005 as Ex.PW-1/2, copy of
prospectus showing the trademark of the plaintiff running in 40 pages
as Ex.PW-1/3, copy of the promotion pamphlet having the trademark of
the plaintiff as Ex.PW-1/4, copy of the advertisement as Ex.PW-1/5,
copy of the letter received from its franchise M/s Sky Infotech
informing the plaintiff about infringement of its trademark as
Ex.PW-1/6, copy of the pamphlet got issued by the defendants showing
the infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff as Ex.PW-1/7,
photographs showing the boards displayed by the defendants
as Ex.PW-1/8 & Ex.PW-1/9, copy of the complaint made to the S.H.O.,
Police Station Malviya Nagar against the defendants as Ex.PW-1/10 and
copy of the same sent to the Commissioner of Police as Ex.PW-1/11.
On a perusal of the record and also from what has been noticed
above, I find that the averments made in the plaint have been
substantially and in material particulars proved through the affidavit of
Shri Sanjeev Sindhu. There is no rebuttal to the case set-up by the
plaintiff against defendants No.1 & 3. I, therefore, have no reason to
doubt the correctness of the same.
On March 20, 2009, learned counsel for the plaintiff had made a
statement that he was not pressing the prayers for damages and
rendition of accounts against defendants No.1 & 3. Accordingly, I
hereby pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff
restraining defendants No.1 & 3, their servants, agents or any other
person acting on their behalf from using the trademark "F-TECH" or
any other trademark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff‟s
trademark "F-TEC". Decree-sheet be drawn.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
MAY 04, 2009
ka
