Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors vs Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd.
2013 Latest Caselaw 585 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of decision: 7th February, 2013

+                        CS(OS) 1213/2011
       SATYA INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. & ORS.         ..... Plaintiffs
                    Through: Mr. Mohit Goel with Mr. Sidhant
                             Goel & Ms. Sangeeta Goel, Advs.
                                  versus
       SATYA INFRA & ESTATES PVT. LTD.                   ..... Defendants
                    Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1.

The plaintiffs have sued for permanent injunction restraining the

defendant from carrying on business under the mark "SATYA" or any other

Mark / trading name identical or deceptively similar to the logo / label

"SATYA" of the plaintiffs and for delivery of infringing stationary,

hoardings, boards, printed material, dies, block etc. and for rendition of

accounts and recovery of damages of Rs.21,00,000/-.

2. Summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief

were issued to the defendant. The plaintiffs filed affidavit of service with

proof of delivery of summons on the defendant. However, vide order dated

12.10.2012, fresh summons of the suit were issued to the defendant.

Another affidavit of service together with report generated from the website

of DHL Couriers was filed and on perusal whereof, the Joint Registrar was

satisfied that the shipment had been delivered on 16.11.2012. None

appeared for the defendant. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before

this Bench for appropriate orders against the defendant. Today also none has

appeared for the defendant. The counsel for the plaintiffs presses for interim

injunction.

3. The plaintiffs have given the address of the defendant of Bangalore,

Karnataka. The affidavit of service dated 26.11.2012 has been filed by the

Court Clerk of the Advocate for the plaintiffs to the effect that notice was

sent to the defendant by Blue Dart Courier on 15.11.2012 and was delivered

on 16.11.2012. There is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the said

affidavit emanating from the chamber of the Advocate for the plaintiffs and

it has to be presumed that the shipment which has been reported to be

delivered to the defendant contained the summons of the suit and notice of

the application together with copies of the plaint, application and other

documents etc. If it is discovered otherwise, of course the Advocate for the

plaintiffs would be accountable. The defendant is thus proceeded against ex

parte.

4. The next question which arises is whether this Court should consider

the application for interim relief and direct the plaintiffs to lead ex parte

evidence. The counsel for the plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs are willing

to give up the reliefs of delivery, of rendition of accounts and of recovery of

damages, if the suit for the relief of injunction alone were to be heard today.

5. I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by

directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by

way of examination-in chief and which invariably is a repetition of the

contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC,

besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail

to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by

way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the plaint or

to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by

the plaintiffs and are already on record. I have therefore heard the counsel

for the plaintiffs on merits qua the relief of injunction.

6. The plaintiffs have pleaded:

(i) that the three plaintiffs viz. Satya Infrastructure Ltd., Satya

Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Satya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. have been

incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the

Companies Act, 1956 and all belong to what is known as the

„Satya Group‟, which commenced business operations in the

year 1986 under the word mark "SATYA" and is now

providing services in financial affairs, integrated townships,

group housing and villas, hospitality, service sector,

commercial complexes, IT parks, shopping complexes,

multiplexes, real estate, mall development and management and

infrastructure development etc.

(ii) The "SATYA" Group is associated with a shopping mall-cum-

commercial complex in the name of Centrum Plaza, another

shopping mall in the name of City Centre, a township in the

name of Malwa County, a five star hotel-cum-shopping mall in

the name of Galaxy Hotel Shopping and Spa and apartments,

penthouses etc. in the name of The Legend etc.

(iii) That the plaintiffs businesses are spread across India

particularly in the National Capital Region of Delhi and

Madhya Pradesh.

(iv) That the combined annual turnover of the plaintiffs for the year

2009-10 was approximately Rs.3219.13 lakhs.

(v) The Trademark "STAYA" was coined by the Promoter Director

of the plaintiffs‟ companies and the plaintiffs are the licenced

users thereof.

(vi) That the mark "SATYA" has been continuously used in the

trading name and as a house mark and / or service mark for all

business activities of the plaintiffs.

(vii) That all the projects of the plaintiffs have been promoted and

sold under the trademark "SATYA" for the last approximately

25 years.

(viii) That the plaintiffs have secured Registration under the

Trademark Act, 1999 for the exclusive use of the Trademark

"SATYA", its variants and most of its group marks and has

already obtained registration on 02.01.2006 and 04.07.2006 of

"SATYA & Logo" and "SATYA Group & Device"

respectively and as many as 14 other applications are pending.

(ix) That the Trademark "SATYA" features prominently in print

and electronic media having wide circulation and the

promotional and developmental expenses incurred by the

plaintiffs since the year 2006 onwards are in the region of

Rs.1.5 crores.

(x) "SATYA" has attained the distinction of a well known mark.

(xi) That the defendant Company was incorporated on 05.09.2009

to carry on business inter alia of real estate development and

construction.

(xii) That the name of the defendant containing the word "SATYA"

constitutes infringement / violation of the statutory and

common law rights of the plaintiffs.

(xiii) That the defendant has used the name "SATYA" in its name to

gain unfair advantage over the goodwill of the plaintiffs.

(xiv) That though a legal notice dated 11.10.2010 was issued to the

defendant but no reply was received thereto.

(xv) That the use of the mark "SATYA" of the plaintiffs by the

defendant in its trade name is intended to pass off the services

of the defendant as that of the plaintiffs.

7. The plaintiffs along with the plaint have inter alia filed:

(i) Certificates of Incorporation together with Memorandum and

Articles of Association of the three plaintiffs which show that

the plaintiff No.2 was incorporated on 05.09.1995 in the name

of Khushahali Farms Pvt. Ltd. and with effect from the year

2005 changed its name to SATYA Developers Pvt. Ltd; that the

plaintiff No.3 Satya Holdings Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated under

the same name on 15.12.1986; and, the plaintiff No.1 Satya

Infrastructure Ltd. was incorporated on 15.07.2005 as

Prabhatam Developers Ltd and on 08.03.2006 changed its name

to Satya Infrastructures Ltd.

(ii) The brochures of the real estate projects developed by the

plaintiffs prominently bearing the name SATYA Group.

(iii) The four Registration Certificates dated 02.01.2006 and

04.07.2006 of the following logos:

in Classes 42, 36, 37 and 41 respectively.

(iv) The copies of other pending applications of the plaintiffs for

registration of trademark.

(v) The advertisements published by the plaintiffs again under the

mark SATYA Group.

(vi) Ex parte order dated 28.02.2011 in CS(OS) No.483/2011 filed

by the plaintiffs against the Satya Builders Pvt. Ltd., restraining

the defendants therein from carrying on business under the

trading name containing the mark SATYA (on enquiry it is told

that the said suit is still pending for ex parte evidence).

(vii) Printout from the website www.satyagroup.com and

www.satyadevelopers.com detailing the activities of the

plaintiffs.

8. The counsel for the plaintiffs during the hearing has informed that the

Promoter Director of the plaintiffs on 18.07.2012, 27.07.2012 and

28.07.2012 has also been granted registration of the name SATYA in

Classes 37, 43 and 36 respectively. Copies of the Registration Certificates

have been handed over in the Court and are taken on record.

9. Though no document to show that the defendant was incorporated

only in the year 2009 as pleaded have been filed but the defendant having

chosen not to contest the suit, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve

the said pleading duly supported by affidavit of the plaintiffs

10. Once it is found that the plaintiffs have obtained registration of the

mark in Classes 36, 37 & 43, the carrying on business by the

defendant in the name and style of Staya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd. is clearly

an infringement of the registered Trademark of which the plaintiffs are

licensed users. Even otherwise from the documents I am satisfied that the

plaintiffs are carrying on business under the Mark / Label / Logo "SATYA"

and carrying on business by the defendant in the name and style Staya Infra

& Estates Pvt. Ltd. in the same fields / areas / sphere in which, plaintiffs are

carrying on business is likely to cause confusion and which in the minds of

the customers/patrons of the said business, likely to cause confusion and

convey an impression of the defendant belonging to the group under aegis of

which the plaintiffs are carrying on business and of the business of the

defendant being that of the plaintiffs.

11. I am therefore of the view that the plaintiffs have made out a case for

injuncting the defendant from carrying on business in the name of Staya

Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd. and / or from, in the course of its business, use the

trademark "SATYA" of the plaintiffs or any other mark deceptively similar

thereto.

12. Section 20 of the Companies Act, 1956 also prohibits registration of a

company in a name which is identical with or too nearly resembles the name

by which a company in existence has been previously registered or a

registered trade mark, or a trade mark which is subject of an application for

registration, of any other person under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

13. However, since the defendant would be required to rectify its name by

following the prescribed procedure and which process may take some time,

it is deemed expedient to grant three months time to the defendant and to

make the injunction operative after the said time.

14. A decree for permanent injunction is accordingly passed in favour of

the plaintiffs and against the defendant, to be operative after three months

herefrom, restraining the defendant from carrying on business in the name of

Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd. or in any other name identical to or

deceptively similar to or containing the trademark "SATYA" of the

plaintiffs and / or from offering, selling or offering for sale any goods or

services under the trade name or mark "SATYA" or any other trade name or

mark deceptively similar to the trademark / label/ logo "SATYA" of the

plaintiffs.

15. Decree sheet be drawn up.

16. The defendant however having not contested the suit. No order as to

costs.

17. The plaintiffs are given liberty to serve a copy of this judgment and

decree upon the Registrar of Companies with which the defendant is

registered to enable the said Registrar of Companies to, upon failure of the

defendant, undertake steps for rectification of defendant‟s name and

coercively change the name of the defendant in compliance with this

judgment and/or strike off the defendant from the Register of the

Companies.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J FEBRUARY 07, 2013 „gsr‟..