Delhi High Court
M/S. Aero Club vs Mr. Sahibjeet & Anr. on 5 February, 2018
3
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 662/2017 & I.A. 11428/2017
M/S. AERO CLUB ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Prithvi Singh and Mr. Utkarsh
Joshi, Advocates.
Versus
MR. SAHIBJEET & ANR. ..... Defendants
Through None
% Date of Decision: 05th February, 2018
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Since the Joint Registrar has rendered a finding that the
defendants have been served (as they have refused service) the
defendants are proceeded ex parte.
2. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff gives up prayers
(iv), (v) and (vi) of the prayers to the suit. The statement made by
learned counsel for plaintiff is accepted by this Court and plaintiff is
held bound by the same.
3. He further states that in view of the judgment of this Court in
Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd.,
2013 SCC OnLine Del 508, the present suit be decreed qua the relief
of injunction. The relevant portion of the said judgment relied upon by
learned counsel for the plaintiff is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"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."
4. The relevant facts of the present case are that the plaintiff is
engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and exporting
footwear, apparel and lifestyle products like belts, wallets, shoes,
shirts, T-shirts etc. under the trademarks WOODLAND, WDL,
TREE DEVICE and the Woodland Label . The
plaintiff has been extensively and continuously using the trade mark
WOODLAND for almost 25 years.
5. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is the registered
proprietor of the mark WOODLAND and the Leaf device used
on the heel of the shoe in Class 25. The plaintiff has also filed
applications for registration of the TREE DEVICE and the
Woodland Label in Class 18 which are currently pending
before the Trade Marks Registry. It is stated that the TREE DEVICE
and the Woodland Label are original artistic works
within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in September, 2017,
it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that a large number of
counterfeit products bearing the plaintiff's mark WOODLAND,
TREE DEVICE and the Woodland Label are
being sold in the markets of Delhi. Subsequently, the plaintiff
commissioned an investigation and the investigator narrowed down
the supply of shoes to the shop of defendant No. 1 who is the
proprietor of defendant No. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states
that the investigator thereafter visited the shop of the defendant No. 1
and purchased samples of shoes bearing the WOODLAND marks
which were cheap counterfeits of the plaintiff's products and of sub-
standard quality. He further states that no invoice was provided to the
investigator for the said purchase. A comparison chart of the products
of the plaintiff and the defendants is reproduced hereinbelow:
7. He also contends that adoption and use of plaintiff's mark
WOODLAND, TREE DEVICE and the Woodland Label
by the defendants constitutes infringement and passing
off and is likely to deceive the customers into believing that the
products they are purchasing are authentic products of the plaintiff.
8. Order XIII-A of the Act, 2015 empowers this Court to pass a
summary judgment, without recording evidence, if it appears that the
defendants have no real prospect of defending the claim.
9. Though the Local Commissioners appointed by this Court did
not seize any infringing good, yet in the opinion of this Court, the
defendants have no real prospect of defending the claim as they have
neither entered appearance nor filed their written statement or denied
the documents of the plaintiff.
10. In view of the above, the present suit is decreed in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendants in terms of prayer clause
(i), (ii) and (iii) of the plaint along with the actual costs. The plaintiff
is given liberty to file on record the exact cost incurred by it in
adjudication of the present suit, if not already filed. Registry is
directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly. Consequently, the
present suit and application stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 05 , 2018
KA
