Delhi High Court
Hsil Limited vs Kripton Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. on 21 April, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on :18.04.2017
Judgment Delivered on:21.04.2017
CS(OS) 2736/2014
HSIL LIMITED ......Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Manav Gupta and Ms.Prabhsahay
Kaur, Advocates.
Versus
KRIPTON CERAMIC PVT. LTD. & ORS. ...Defendants
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
1 The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the
defendants for permanent injunction restraining infringement of
trademarks, delivery up, rendition of accounts of profits as also
damages.
2 The plaintiff HSIL Limited, formerly known as Hindustan
Twyfords Ltd. is a company established in 1960, incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and is a leading manufacturer
and seller of sanitary ware products, kitchen appliances, tiles etc. under
the trademark "HINDWARE", which is a registered trademark of the
plaintiff since the year 1993, as well other supplementary
marks/logos/labels such as H-VITREOUS HINDWARE, HINDWARE
ITALIAN COLLECTION, HSIL etc. The history of HINDWARE has
been detailed in the plaint establishing its business reputation and
goodwill not only in any single class of goods but across various classes
due to wide range of products. The plaintiff also owns the domain name
www.hindwarehomes.com which provides information about the
company and also offers its entire range of products.
3 Defendant No.1 is the manufacturer of tiles under the trademark
"TLINDWARE" which is registered as a label mark. Defendant No.2 is
the director of Defendant No.1, Defendant No.3 has designed the
infringing trademark and gotten it registered in his own name on behalf
of Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No.4 is the shop from which the
infringing products are sold.
4 In June, 2014 the plaintiff received information that the
defendants were manufacturing and selling tiles prominently displaying
the plaintiff's trademark HINDWARE. Upon investigating further, the
plaintiff discovered that the defendants were not only using a mark
deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademark HINDWARE
but were also copying the font and writing style. Plaintiff had requested
Defendant No. 3 to visit the office of the Plaintiff in Gujarat where he
disclosed that though the defendants sell under the mark TLINDWARE,
the manner in which the alphabets T and L are written, present a visual
impression that the two alphabets combined form the alphabet H (for
HINDWARE) so as to cause confusion in the minds of the customers
without being liable in any manner, and also assured the plaintiff that he
would dispose of the infringing cartons, printing plates and give up the
registration for TLINDWARE. Despite the assurances the defendants
continued with the infringement and chose to ignore the reminder emails
sent to them by the plaintiff.
5 Present suit has accordingly been filed praying for a relief of
permanent injunction and seeking a restraint on the infringement of the
trademark of the plaintiff. Restraint on passing off, delivery up of goods
and damages to the tune of Rs.21,00,000/- have also been prayed for.
6 In the course of proceedings of the suit, on 09.09.2014 an ex parte
interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants restraining them from using the trademark HINDWARE or
any other mark which is identical to or similar to the plaintiff's mark.
The ex-parte interim injunction was then made absolute on 27.01.2017.
7 Summons of the suit were issued to the defendants who in spite of
the service did not appear. They were proceeded ex parte on 16.01.2015.
8 Ex parte evidence by way of affidavit of PW-1 (Vice President-IR
& Legal of the plaintiff) and PW-2 (senior officer-IT of the plaintiff) has
been filed. PW-1 has reiterated all the averments made in the plaint and
has proved various documents delineated as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW-1/25
(except Ex.PW1/19). PW-2 has also reiterated the averments made in
plaint.
9 The plaintiff has established that the mark HINDWARE is a well
known mark. He has proved his case. In view of the testimony of the
witnesses of the plaintiff i.e. both PW-1 and PW-2 as also documentary
evidence adduced and proved in the court, the plaintiff is entitled to a
decree of permanent injunction. It is clear that the defendants have
copied the trademark and logo of the plaintiff's in all respects. This
adoption of the trademark of the plaintiff is fraudulent and is done with
a malafide intention and has caused huge losses to the plaintiff not only
in monetary terms but even in terms of loss to its reputation and
goodwill. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and by way of
the permanent injunction, the defendants, directors, officers, servants
and agents and all others acting for and on their behalf are restrained
from using the plaintiff's trademark HINDWARE or any other
trademark of the plaintiff, on its products or in any manner which is
deceptively similar with the plaintiff's trademarks amounting to
infringement/passing off the plaintiff's registered trademarks as also
from misrepresenting or holding out to be connected or related to the
plaintiff in any manner whatsoever.
10 The defendants are also directed to destroy all the printed and
electronic material, invoices, letter heads, visiting cards, products,
product packaging, carton, cardboard boxes, printing plates or any other
material bearing the plaintiff's trademark HINDWARE.
11 The plaintiff has also claimed damages. In the affidavit by way of
evidence it has been reiterated that the use of the infringing trademark
by the defendants has caused huge losses to the plaintiff not only in
monetary terms, but also to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff has also made out a case for entitlement of damages and is
awarded damages quantified at Rs.21,00,000/-. Cost of the suit also be
granted in favour of the plaintiff. Decree sheet be drawn. File be
consigned to record room.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL, 21, 2017
Ndn
