Delhi High Court
Lg Corp & Ors vs Rajesh Gupta & Ors. on 8 February, 2018
7
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 112/2018
LG CORP & ORS ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Hemant Singh, Advocate
versus
RAJESH GUPTA & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Dhavish Chitkara, Advocate
with Mr. Shobhit K. Srivastava,
Advocate for defendant No.4.
Mr. Divye Sharma, Advocate for
defendant No.5.
% Date of Decision: 08th February, 2018
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
I.A.1892-93/2018
1. Present joint applications have been filed under Order 23 Rule 3
read with Section 151 CPC. The same are duly signed by learned
counsel for the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 4 and 5 as well as by the
said parties.
2. Present applications are also supported by affidavits of
authorized representative of the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 4
and 5.
3. The learned counsel for the said parties state that the matter has
been compromised in accordance with the terms mentioned in
I.A.1892-93/2018.
4. The learned counsel further assure and undertake to this Court
that the said parties shall comply with the Settlement terms mentioned
in I.A.1892-93/2018. The aforesaid statements, assurances and
undertakings as well as undertakings given by learned counsel for the
parties are accepted by this Court and the said parties are held bound
by the same.
5. This Court has also perused the compromise application and
Settlement Agreement and is of the opinion that they are lawful.
6. Consequently, the suit is decreed qua defendant nos. 4 and 5, in
accordance with applications bearing nos. I.A.1892-93/2018, which
are marked as Ex. C-1(Colly). Registry is directed to prepare a decree
sheet accordingly. Accordingly, present applications stand disposed
of.
CS(COMM) 112/2018 & I.As. 11692/2015, 11693/2015,
12526/2015, 13341/2015, 18141-18142/2015
7. Vide order dated 09th November, 2016, defendant nos.1 to 3
were proceeded ex parte.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiffs gives up prayers
(d), (e) and (f) of the prayer clause to the suit. 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
plaintiffs 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."
9. The relevant facts of the present case are that the plaintiff no. 1
is the registered proprietor of trademark LG for electronic business
and goods used by all plaintiffs' group companies worldwide. The
said mark is registered in favour of plaintiff no.1 in over 180 countries
in the world in various classes. The trademark LG was coined as the
new Group/corporate name by the plaintiff No. 1 from the initials of
its erstwhile corporate names/group names, i.e. "LUCKY" &
"GOLDSTAR".
10. It is stated in the plaint that for promoting its brand, plaintiffs
have created a distinctive logo. The logo represents world, future,
humanity and creative thinking. The said LG logo is stated to be an
original artistic work and plaintiff no.1 is the proprietor of its
copyright. It is stated that the plaintiff no. 3 is stated to have
extensively advertised their goods bearing the trademark LG and LG
logo in print and visual media in India.
11. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs and/or its associate
group of companies are stated to be engaged in the business of
manufacturing and marketing of various goods including television
sets, home appliances, projectors and various other electronic digital
appliances.
12. The subject matter of the present suit is the LG Bluetooth Stereo
Headset HBS-730, allegedly a stylish Bluetooth headset having an
ergonomic curve design providing wireless control. Learned counsel
for the plaintiffs state that the headset has become an instant hit and
has become popular amongst the masses and the said model is being
sold by plaintiff no. 3 in India at an MRP of Rs. 5,499/-.
13. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that in the third week of
April, 2015, plaintiff no. 3 came to know that defendants nos. 1, 2 and
3 were selling counterfeit LG Bluetooth Stereo Headset, not limited to
HBS-730, through e-commerce websites defendants nos. 4 and 5 in
the price range between Rs.600/- and Rs. 1,700/-, whereas the original
is sold for more than Rs. 5,000.
14. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs' states that consumers will not
be able to distinguish between the originals and the counterfeits as the
distinction between them is extremely minute and that consumers are
bound to be confused and deceived. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs
states that the products being sold by the defendants are sub-standard
products and are dangerous for consumers.
15. Order XIII-A of the Act, 2015 empowers this Court to pass a
summary judgment, without recording evidence, if it appears that the
defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim.
16. In the opinion of this Court, the defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 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 plaintiffs.
17. In view of the above, the suit is decreed in favour of the
plaintiffs and against defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 in terms of prayer
clause (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint along with the actual costs. The
costs shall amongst others include the lawyers' fees as well as the
amounts spent on purchasing the court fees. 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
applications stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 08, 2018
rs
