The Polo/Lauren Company, L.P. vs Siddharth Chibba & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 1755 Del

             *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                           Date of decision: 1st April, 2014.

+                                CS(OS) No.1323/2010
       THE POLO/LAUREN COMPANY, L.P.               ..... Plaintiff
                   Through: Mr. Praveen Anand, Ms. Vaishali
                            Mittal and Ms. Nupur Kumar, Advs.
                                   Versus
    SIDDHARTH CHIBBA & ORS.                                  ..... Defendants
                 Through: None.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

1.

The plaintiff instituted this suit for the reliefs of, a) permanent

injunction restraining the five defendants from making representations in

relation to the plaintiff‟s business or its trademarks or from creating a false

impression of a relationship between the plaintiff and any of the defendants;

and, b) from using the plaintiff‟s trademarks; and, c) for recovery of

damages in the sum of Rs.20,05,000/-, pleading:

(i) that the plaintiff since the year 1968 is in the business of

designing, manufacturing and marketing articles of contemporary,

high quality men‟s clothing and from mid 1970‟s of designing and

authorizing manufacturing and promoting the sale of articles of

contemporary, high quality women‟s and children‟s clothing and

accessories;

(ii) that the plaintiff is the proprietor in India of several trademarks

comprising or containing POLO and/or RALPH LAUREN as well as

the POLO PLAYER DEVICE etc.;

(iii) that POLO trademarks and goodwill associated therewith cuts

across barriers of geography, language, ideology and class;

(iv) that the defendant No.3 Financial Chronicle posted an article

dated 21st April, 2010 on its website www.mydigitalfc.com titled

"Ralph Lauren „Polo‟ to be in India by year end" reporting that the

defendant No.1 Siddharth Chibba of Inter Ads Plans Exhibitions Pvt.

Ltd. is to open five exclusive POLO RALPH LAUREN stores to

cover all major cities by the middle of 2012;

(v) that another article dated 22nd December, 2010 was posted by

defendant No.5 M/s Franchise India Holdings Limited on its website

www.franchiseindia.com titled "Ralph Lauren to touch the Indian

Shore" and also reporting that the defendant No.1 aimed to launch

"the first Ralph Lauren store at a five star hotel and that the company

plans to open five exclusive Polo Ralph Lauren stores to cover all

major cities by the middle of 2012";

(vi) that attempts with the defendant No.4 Manisha Yadava reporter

with the defendant No.3 Financial Chronicle to know the basis of the

said news being yielded no results;

(vii) that the defendant No.1 also expressed shock about the news

and represented that his consultant defendant No.2 Mr. Divyendu

Shekhar proprietor of Retail Analytics Pvt. Ltd. was looking into the

matter and also making enquiries from the defendant No.5 of the basis

of the article published by it;

(viii) that the defendant No.4 though admitted the mistake and

promised to take corrective steps by issuing a corrigendum, but failed

to do so;

(ix) that the defendants No.3 to 5 were thus guilty of publishing

false information concerning the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the suit was filed for the reliefs aforesaid.

2. Summons of the suit were issued and vide ex-parte ad-interim

injunction dated 6th July, 2010, the defendants were restrained from

representing in any manner to the public including on their website that the

plaintiff had entered into or was proposing to enter into any franchise or

agreement for selling plaintiff‟s products in India.

3. The order dated 21st July, 2010 in the suit records that the Court, on an

application of the plaintiff for contempt, examined the website

www.mydigitalfc.com did not find the impugned article, though the same

was found on the website www.franchiseindia.com. Accordingly, notice of

contempt was issued to the defendant No.5 only.

4. Written statements were filed by the defendant No.1 and defendants

No.3&4 and to which replications were filed by the plaintiff. None appeared

for the defendants No.2&5 who were on 12th January, 2011 proceeded

against ex-parte.

5. On application of the plaintiff, vide order dated 2 nd December, 2011,

Inter Ads Plans Exhibitions Pvt. Ltd. was impleaded as defendant No.6 and

an application under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC),

1908 filed by the plaintiff on the one hand and defendant No.1 and the

defendant No.6 on the other hand was also allowed on 2 nd December, 2011

and the suit of the plaintiff insofar as against the defendants No.1&6 was

decree for the relief of injunction.

6. Another application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC by the plaintiff on

the one hand and the defendant No.5 on the other hand was also allowed on

2nd December, 2011 itself and the suit insofar as against the defendant No.5,

was also decreed for the relief of injunction only.

7. The suit thereafter proceeded against the defendants No.2,3&4 only

and of which, as aforesaid, the defendant No.2 has not even filed a written

statement. The defendants No.3&4 though had filed the written statement

but stopped appearing from 23rd April, 2013 and were proceeded against ex-

parte vide order of the said date. The plaintiff has led its ex-parte evidence.

8. The defendants No.3&4 though are ex-parte, had contested the suit

pleading, (a) that though the plaintiff in the plaint itself had admitted that the

same news was also published in HELLO magazine but had not taken any

action against the said magazine; (b) that the defendant No.3 Financial

Chronicle is a well reputed media brand published in association with

International Herald Tribune and is part of the 70 years old Deccan

Chronicle Group of publications enjoying reputation, editorial integrity and

journalistic ethics; (c) that if the article put up on the website

www.mydigitalfc.com of the defendant No.3 was incorrect, the plaintiff

should have approached the Editor and should have issued a denial but did

not do so; (d) that the defendant No.4 got the information on which the said

article was based, from the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 also

forwarded a study report titled "India Market Entry Report of Ralph Lauren"

to the defendant No.4; (e) that the defendant No.4 before publishing the

article, sought confirmation from the plaintiff but since no response was

forthcoming from the plaintiff denying the information, the said article was

published on 21st April, 2010; and, (f) that the publication by the defendants

No.3&4 was thus bona fide and they cannot be saddled with any liability

therefor.

9. In the circumstances aforesaid, there can be no doubt as to the

entitlement of the plaintiff to the relief claimed of injunction against the

defendants No.2 to 4 also. The only thing which remains for adjudication is,

whether the plaintiff is also entitled to the relief of compensation from the

said defendants.

10. I have perused the applications filed by the plaintiff compromising the

disputes with the defendants No.1, 6 & 5 and do not find the plaintiff to

have, as part of the said compromise, insisted upon recovery of any amount

by way of compensation from the said defendants. It is also found that the

plaintiff signed a confidential Agreement dated 28 th November, 2011 with

the defendants No.1&6, no copy whereof is filed in the Court or was shown

to the Court. The witness of the plaintiff in its ex-parte evidence has also

not deposed anything qua the said confidential Agreement.

11. The signing of the said confidential Agreement between the plaintiff

on the one hand and the defendants No.1&6 on the other hand lends me to

believe that the news published by the defendants No.3&4 on their website

www.mydigitalfc.com of Polo Ralph Lauren coming to India may not be

totally baseless. If it had been totally baseless, there would have been no

occasion for the plaintiff to sign a confidential Agreement with the

defendants No.1&6. Significantly, no such agreement was signed with the

defendant No.5 who also as per the plaintiff had published the same news.

Once, it is found that the news published by the defendants No.3&4 was not

mala fide or designed in any manner whatsoever to harm the plaintiff and

once the plaintiff has compromised with the defendants No.1&6 who were

attributed with bringing the plaintiff‟s brand in India, no case entitling the

plaintiff to any damages from defendants no.3&4 is made out. In fact, the

plaintiff in its ex-parte evidence has not even proved any such loss/damage.

All that has been claimed is the amount spent on this litigation.

12. However, I am not inclined to award to the plaintiff any costs of the

litigation also against the defendants No.3&4 in view of what is recorded

hereinabove.

13. The defendant No.2 having not contested the suit, the question of

awarding any costs against him does not arise.

14. Resultantly, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against

the defendants No.2 to 4 in terms of prayer paragraph 42 (i) & (ii) of the

plaint, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Decree sheet be drawn up.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

APRIL 01, 2014.

bs