Western Digital Technologies Inc v. Raaj Computer

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." (Emphasis supplied)

¶32In Hindustan Lever Ltd. and Anr v. Satish Kumar, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1378, it has been held as under that: "23. One of the reasons for granting relief of punitive damages is that despite of service of summons/notice, the defendant had chosen not to appear before the court. It shows that the defendant is aware of the illegal activities otherwise, he ought to have attended the proceedings and give justification for the said illegal acts. Since, the defendant has maintained silence, therefore, the guilt of the defendant speaks for itself and the court, under these circumstances, feels that in order to avoid future infringement, relief of punitive damages is to be granted in favour of the plaintiff."

¶33Keeping in view the above precedents, the plaintiff is held entitled to damages quantified at Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh only), especially keeping in view the recovery made by the Local Commissioner as also the potential loss and injury that the unwary consumer shall suffer on purchasing such counterfeit product from the defendants. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit.

¶34The suit is decreed in the above terms. Let a decree sheet be drawn accordingly.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. SEPTEMBER 21, 2022/AB

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 24.08.2022 Date of decision: 21.09.2022 + CS(COMM) 677/2019 & IAs 17475-76/2019 WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES INC. ..... Plaintiff Through: Ms.Tanya Varma, Ms.Devyani Nath, Advs. versus RAAJ COMPUTER ..... Defendant Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking inter alia a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its proprietor, partners, representatives and/or others acting for and on its behalf from selling, offering for sale, advertising or otherwise dealing in infringing goods which bear the plaintiff"s registered trade marks "WESTERN DIGITAL", and/or "WD" (hereinafter referred to as "Western Digital trade marks") FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff-company was founded in April 1970 as "General Digital", and in July 1971, it adopted its current name and trade mark "WESTERN DIGITAL" as part of its corporate name. The plaintiff, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Western Digital Corporation, is one of the largest computer hard-disk drive manufacturers in the world. 3. The plaintiff is a world-renowned manufacturer and marketer of inter alia storage devices, media players, routers/switches/bridges, comprising of Original Equipment Manufacturer (in short, "OEM")/ system manufacturer, desktop, and enterprise, solid state drives (in short "SSDs"), software and mobile applications which are marketed and sold under the plaintiff"s "Western Digital trade marks". 4. "WESTERN DIGITAL" is the most essential feature of the plaintiff"s corporate name, and is also used as a trade mark by the plaintiff-company, either as a standalone or as a conjunctive mark. The plaintiff"s "WD" logo, is which is its corporate logo, is present on all the labels and packaging of their goods. 5. The plaintiff has applied for and is the registered proprietor of the "Western Digital trade marks" in India. The details of trade mark registrations granted in favour of the plaintiff in Class 5 under the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") are as follows: Trade Mark Number Class Date Goods WESTERN DIGITAL 1345682 March 18, 2005 COMPUTER PRODUCTS, NAMELY, DISK DRIVES WD 1349235 April 6, 2005 COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INCLUDING, HARD DRIVES 1325732 December 14, 2004 COMPUTER PRODUCTS, NAMELY HARD DRIVES 6. The plaintiff also owns and maintains several websites whose domain names contain "WESTERN DIGITAL" or "WD" and are used for marketing and selling goods bearing the "Western Digital trade marks", the details whereof are given in paragraph 12 of the plaint. 7. The plaintiff submits that the Western Digital trade marks have been registered in many countries such as Australia, China, Singapore, Canada, the European Union, France, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States of America and the United Arab Emirates, to name a few. The plaintiff has provided details of the revenue earned by the plaintiff-company, up until the filing of the present suit, in paragraph 15 of the plaint. 8. The plaintiff further states that it has invested large sums of money in advertising and promoting the goods bearing the "Western Digital trade marks" world-wide as well as in India. Since the year 2005, the plaintiff has spent more than Rs. 20 Crore to build the "WESTERN DIGITAL" and "WD" brands in India. 9. The plaintiff further asserts that they have been extensively advertised in all major international magazines including "Wired", "Rolling Stone", "Fast Company", "PC Adviser", "PC Pro", "Computer Shopper", and "The Gadget Show Magazine", to name only a few. All these magazines are widely circulated and read in India as well. The "Western Digital trade marks" are also regularly advertised in Indian publications as also on various television and satellite channels around the world. 10. The plaintiff claims that the goods manufactured and sold by t