Tata Sia Airlines Limited v. Shenzhen Coloursplndour Gift Co Ltd & Anr

judgment in Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters,

(2005) DLT 504 this Court has taken the view that damages in such a case should be awarded against defendants who chose to stay away from proceedings of the Court and they should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of evasion of Court proceedings. The rationale for the same is that while defendants who appear in Court may be burdened with damages while defendants who chose to stay away from the Court would escape such damages. The actions of the defendants result in affecting the reputation of the plaintiff and every endeavour should be made for a larger public purpose to discourage such parties from indulging in acts of deception.

¶14A further aspect which has been emphasised in Time Incorporated case (supra) is also material that the object is also to relieve pressure on the overloaded system of criminal justice by providing civil alternative to criminal prosecution of minor crimes. The result of the actions of defendants is that plaintiffs, instead of putting its energy for expansion of its business and sale of products, has to use its resources to be spread over a number of litigations to bring to book the offending traders in the market. Both these aspects have also been discussed in CS(OS) No. 1182/2005 titled Asian Paints (India) Ltd. v. Balaji Paints and Chemicals decided on 10.3.2006. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff would also be entitled to damages which are quantified at Rs. 3 lakh."

¶32Keeping in view the above as also the object and mandate of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018; and the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022, the plaintiff is held entitled to damages and costs quantified at Rs. 20 Lakh (Rupees Twenty Lakh only).

¶33The suit is disposed of in the above terms. Let a decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. AUGUST 31, 2022/AB

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 23.08.2022 Date of decision: 31.08.2022 + CS(COMM) 352/2020 & I.A. 9553/2021 TATA SIA AIRLINES LIMITED ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Mukul Kochhar & Mr.Aditya Gupta, Advs. versus SHENZHEN COLOURSPLENDOUR GIFT CO LTD & ANR. ..... Defendants Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. The present suit has been filed seeking inter alia a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their associated companies, subsidiaries, directors, wholesalers, distributors, partners or proprietors, as the case may be, its officers, servant and agents from advertising, directly or indirectly offering any goods or services, using or registering corporate names, domain names, or listings on social media platforms as also e-commerce websites which bear the plaintiff"s registered trade marks "VISTARA' and/or (hereinafter referred to as the "VISTARA Marks') along with relief against passing off, dilution, tarnishment and unfair competition. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was incorporated in the year 2013 as a joint venture between TATA Sons Limited and Singapore Airlines Limited, with TATA Sons holding the majority stake of 51% (Fifty-One Percent) in the plaintiff-company. 3. The plaintiff operates its full-service airlines for domestic and international destinations. The plaintiff, as on the date of filing the suit, has been serving thirty-six destinations with over two hundred flights a day, with a fleet of thirty-two Airbus A320 aircrafts; seven Boeing 737- 800NG aircrafts; one Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner aircraft and one Airbus A321 Neo aircraft- with all aircrafts bearing the "VISTARA Marks' of the plaintiff. 4. The plaintiff commenced operations with a maiden flight from New Delhi to Mumbai on 09.01.2015. The plaintiff, as on the date of filing the present suit, operated flights between the Indian cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Chennai, Pune, Ahmedabad, Lucknow, Goa, Varanasi, Guwahati, Bagdogra, Bhubhaneswar, Srinagar, Jammu, Kochi, Chandigarh, Kolkata, Port Blair, Amritsar, Leh, Ranchi, Dibrugarh and Raipur; as also international destinations namely, Bangkok, Dubai, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Singapore. As on the date of institution of the suit, the plaintiff has already flown more than 15 million passengers. The screenshots and print outs from the plaintiff"s website www.airvistara.com providing information about the plaintiff"s services under the 'VISTARA Marks' are exhibited as Ex. PW1/4 (colly.). 5. The plaintiff has incorporated the registered mark 'VISTARA' in their domain name www.airvistara.com as also their mobile application (available on iOS and Android platforms), allowing the public to book flight tickets for their airline. The number of unique internet users visiting the website and WAP site of the plaintiff bearing the mark "VISTARA' between the August 2014 and December 2019 are detailed in paragraph 6 of the affidavit of Mr. Shashank Jain, the authorised signatory and Head-Legal of the plaintiff, examined by the plaintiff as PW-1. 6. The plaintiff has provided details of the amount spent by them on the advertisement and sales promotion across various media, with the amount spent on expenditure increasing substantially from Rs. 1,66,81,571/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty-Six Lakh Eighty-One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy-One only) pre-launch between April to October 2014 to Rs. 29 Crore (Rupees Twenty-Nine Crore only) in the Financial Year 2018-19. The details are mentioned in paragraph 8 of the affidavit of the PW1. The printouts of articles and advertisements regarding the services offered by the plaintiff are exhibited as Ex. PW1/6 (Colly.). 7. The plaintiff has applied for and is the registered proprietor of the 'VISTARA Marks' in several classes in India. The details of trade mark registrations granted in favour of the plaintiff under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in short, "the Act") are