Delhi High Court
Dharampal Satyapal Limited vs Suneel Kumar Rajput & Anr on 13 February, 2014
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~ 29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(OS) 381/2012
% Date of Decision: February 13, 2014
DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms.Vaishali Mittal and Ms.N. Kumar, Adv
versus
SUNEEL KUMAR RAJPUT & ANR ..... Defendant
Through: Mr.Farrukh Khan, Mr.Dalip and
Ms.Sheeba Khan, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunciton, restraining
infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of
accounts, dilution, delivery up, damages against the defendants.
2. While issuing summons in the suit on 15.2.2012, the following order was
passed:
"In the meanwhile, the defendants are restrained from using
the domain names www.newrajneegandhagreens.com and
www.rajneegandhagreensnoida.com. As far as the name of
„RAJNEEGANDHA GREENS‟ is concerned, the said prayer
would be considered at the time of hearing of the interim
application. It is further directed that the defendants shall
maintain true accounts and the details of the booking of
apartments under the name "NEW RAJNEEGANDHA
GREENS" and "RAJNEEGANDHA GREENS NOIDA" and
upon service, file the same by the next date of hearing
alongwith written statement."
CS(OS) 381/2012 1/4
3. The IA.No.2922/2012 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC was finally heard
and by a detailed order of 5.9.2013 the application was allowed. It would
be useful to reproduce the following paragraphs of order dated 5.9.2013:
"16. The factors that are relevant at this stage for determining if
prima facie the Plaintiff‟s registered mark has a reputation in India
are the sales figures which have shown a progressive increase over
the past decade. The affidavit dated 24th February 2012 of Mr.
Amit Singhal, Senior General Manager on behalf of the Plaintiff
adverts to inter alia certain facts which are not disputed by the
Defendants. These include the fact that one of the crossings in the
Noida area where the Plaintiff‟s principal place of business is
located is named after the brand name „Rajnigandha‟. A bus route
is shown to include the said location as one of the bus stops. One of
the exit gates of the Noida Sector 16 metro station identifies the
place as „Rajnigandha Chowk‟. Material has been placed on record
to show that there are television shows sponsored by the brand.
These factors cumulatively would go to show prima facie that the
Plaintiff‟s mark „Rajnigandha‟ has a reputation in India.
17. Section 2 (zg) of the TM Act defines a „well known trade mark‟
in relation to any goods or services to mean „a mark which has
become so to the substantial segment of the public which uses such
goods or receives such services that the use of such mark in relation
to other goods or service would be likely to be taken as indicating a
connection in the course of trade or rendering of services between
those goods or services and a person using the mark in relation to
the first- mentioned goods or services.‟ In this regard, the
aforementioned affidavit dated 24th February 2012 on behalf of the
Plaintiff prima facie shows that customers of the Plaintiff have
made enquiries whether the Defendants projects are in fact
associated with the Plaintiff. While this will have to be tested in
evidence, it is a relevant factor at the interlocutory stage."
24. Accordingly, it is directed that during the pendency of the suit
the Defendants, their partners or proprietor, as the case may be,
their principal officers, servants and agents, distributors and
all others acting on their behalf shall be restrained from
CS(OS) 381/2012 2/4
manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or
indirectly, dealing in any manner with services and/or goods
infringing and/or diluting by using any mark identical with or
similar to the Plaintiff‟s trade mark „Rajnigandha‟, and from
passing off the Defendants‟ business or services or goods as those
of the Plaintiff."
4. The defendants preferred an appeal assailing the order of 5.9.2013,
however, the same was not listed before the Court for hearing, as the
defendants did not remove the objections.
5. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that a detailed order passed by this Court
would show that the trade mark of the plaintiff "Rajnigandha" has
acquired the status of a well known mark. Counsel relies upon the
averments made in the plaint to show that the trade mark "Rajnigandha"
was adopted by the predecessor of the plaintiff in the year 1983 with
respect to pan masala. Reliance is also placed on the export sale figures
and also the amounts spent on advertisements in the form of the
newspapers, magazines, hoardings, television, commercials events, which
have been extracted in the plaint.
6. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has from time to time
received recognition for its quality. The details of the registration of the
plaintiff‟s trade marks have also been extracted in the plaint. Counsel has
contended that on account of extensive advertisement, promotion and
business in India under the trade mark "Rajnigandha", the sale figures in
the year 2011 has reached to 581 crores. Plaintiff‟s goodwill and
reputation has resulted in the association of the plaintiff‟s trade mark
"Rajnigandha" with landmarks within close proximity of its local Offices
in the NCR of Delhi as „Rajnigandha Crossing‟ in District Gautam Budh
Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. and also on the website.
CS(OS) 381/2012 3/4
7. The aforementioned facts and the observations made by the Court in the
interim order would show that the plaintiff has established that their trade
mark "Rajnigandha", is a well known trade mark.
8. Counsel for the defendant submits that subject to the plaintiff‟s giving up
the prayers 30 (ii) and (iii) he has instructions to state that the present suit
may be decreed in terms of 30 (i) of the plaint.
9. Counsel for the plaintiff on instructions submits that plaintiff is ready to
give up prayers 30 (ii) and (iii). Accordingly, the present suit is decreed
in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of prayer 30
(i). The interim orders are confirmed.
10. Counsel for the defendant submits that he has instructions not to press the
appeal filed assailing the order dated 5.9.2013.
I.A. 16673/2013 (under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC)
11. Pursuant to the previous order of this Court, Mr.Suneel Kumar Rajput
(defendant no.1) is present in Court, and submits that he has not flouted
the orders of the Court nor he has any intention to do so. Mr.Suneel
Kumar Rajput also submits that he has already tendered an unqualified
apology in his reply.
12. The explanation of Mr.Suneel Kumar Rajput is accepted. Accordingly,
the notice of contempt is discharged. Application stands disposed of.
G.S.SISTANI, J
FEBRUARY 13, 2014
ssn
CS(OS) 381/2012 4/4
