The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of TM 25 Holding BV vs Uma Manja Shivappa consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singh while disposing a contempt application and an application for stay with costs observed that where the defendant is ex parte and the material before the Court is sufficient to allow the claim of the plaintiff, the time of the Court should not be wasted in directing ex parte evidence to be recorded, which mostly is nothing but a repetition of the contents of the plaint.
Facts
Plaintiff had instituted the present suit seeking protection of its trademark ‘G-STAR’ which was adopted by it in 1989 for various apparel, including jeans, tops and other clothing, as well as a diverse line of luxury accessories, etc. In June 2020, the Defendant was found to be using ‘GS STAR’ for apparel and had also filed an application for the registration of the same for the same class of products as that of the Plaintiff on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. The products of the Defendant were also found to be advertised and promoted on www.indiamart.com and www.justdial.com. It was in this background that this Court had granted an interim injunction.
Procedural History
A Local Commissioner was appointed as the Defendant was not complying with the above injunction order. But he could not find any products with the mark ‘GS STAR’ in the premises of the Defendant. The Defendant was shown to have used the new board by the name ‘Higher Fields Way 2 Journey’ for its apparels.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that the Plaintiff is permitted to approach both these platforms with the URLs of the Defendant’s listings and seek for removal of the same. The said platforms upon receipt of the present order of this Court shall remove the Defendant’s listings bearing the mark ‘GS STAR’ within 36 hours. Hence, the contempt application was disposed of in the above terms.
Now, coming to the application for stay, it was observed that despite the service having been affected, the Defendant chose not to appear in the present suit for the last several hearings. The Defendant had knowledge of the present suit and the injunction order but continued to use the mark ‘GS STAR’, despite the same.
Relying on certain judgments, it was observed that where the defendant is ex parte and the material before the Court is sufficient to allow the claim of the plaintiff, the time of the Court should not be wasted in directing ex parte evidence to be recorded and which mostly is nothing but a repetition of the contents of the plaint.
Judgment
This Court was empowered under the Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022 to pass summary judgment, without the requirement of filing a specific application seeking the same. The present suit was decreed in terms of the reliefs sought in paragraphs 49(a), (b) and (c) of the Plaint the use by the Defendant of the mark ‘GS STAR’ after the filing of the opposition by the Plaintiff, was clearly deliberate and intentional. So, this is a fit case for grant of damages, in terms of the relief sought in paragraph 49(e) of the Plaint, to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. The Plaintiff also incurred litigation costs, including court fee, fees of the Local Commissioner and other expenses to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- in terms of the relief sought in paragraph 49(g) of the Plaint.
Case Name: TM 25 Holding BV vs Uma Manja Shivappa
Citation: CS (COMM) 78/2021 & I.As. 2346/2021, 9196/2021
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Decided on: 28th April 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
