M/S L'Oreal v. M/S Aar Kay Trading Co & Others

¶61* IN IHK HK-JH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI I % Judgment Delivered on: 30.03.2012 M/S1X)RKAL Plaintiff Through : Mr.Ajay Amitabh Suman, Adv. versus M/S AAR KAY TRADING CO & OTIHTIS Defendants Through CORAM: llON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SLSTANI C.S.SiSTANJ, J {ORAL-)

¶1Plaintifl has filed the present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement, passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts. Neither written statement nor reply to the application has been filed by the. defendants. As none appeared on behalf of defendants, defendants were proceeded expaiie on 2.9.2011.

¶2Plaintiff has filed affidavit by way of evidence of Ms.Surbhi Bansal,- (Constituted Attorney of the plaintiff company, which is exhibited as iix.j^W-l/A. PW-1 has deposed that she is authorized by Power of' Attorneyto sign, verify,and file the present suit on behalfof the Plaintiff' Company.Certifiedtrue copy o{ the Power of Attorney has been placcd ' on record and same has been exhibited as ]ix-PW-l / I.

¶3PW-1 has deposed that plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufactuj-e,distribufionand sale ofa wide range ofhair care, skin care, toiietnesand beauty productsincludingperfumerypreparations,essentiaJ CSfOS;19S0/20IO Page I of16 oils, cosmcticsj preparations for colouring and bleaching the hair, hair dyes and tints, preparations for waving and setting the hair, shampoos!, •I hair sprays, non-medicated preparations for the care and the beauty of the hair, non-medicated preparations for the care and the beauty of the skinj toilet soaps, dentifrices, sun-tan preparations, personal deodorants and ij other allied/related products. PW-l has further deposed that ever since its. bonafide adoption in about the first decade of 1900, the Plaintiff since about 1910 - 1915 has been using the word/mark L'OREAL word per se, " styli/.ed, formative/bearing and Label as a Trade Mark as also as an essential part of its Trade Name (which are hereinafter collectively referred to as "the said Trade Mark Trade Name") in relation to its said;. '1 goods and business. In addition to its word per se user, the Plaintiff over ai period of time has been using its said Trade Mark in various stylized,' artistic formats and Label, which have been created and are being created, over a period of time, 'fhe word/mark L'OREAL remains a key andi material part thereof For the sake of convenience the said Trade Mark; includes the said stylized, bearing/formative Label and usages. The;: word/mark L'OREAI^ has all the trappings of an invented mark. The! specimen of PlaintifPs said '1 rade Mark/labels are placed on record and the same have been exhibited as EXHIBIT-PWl/2 (CoOy). PW-l has ' also deposed that since the year 1910 - 1915 the Plaintiff has been , honestly & bonafidely,continuously,commercially,openly, exclusively' and to the exclusion of others uninterruptedlyand in the course of trade and as proprietor thereof being using its said Trade Mark/Trade Name as • Irade Mark in relation to its said goods and businessand carryingon its i said goods and business there under and has built up a worldwide and ^ globallyvaluabletrade, goodwilland reputationthere under and acquired piopiietaryrightstherein. Ihe Plaintiffssaidgoods and businessunderthe CS(OS)1990/2010 Page2 ofIS rv said Trade Marlc/Tradc Name as also the goodwill and reputation-achievedthere under is global in characterand extendsinto Indiaas well. Ever since 1910 - 1915 when the Plaintiff launched its said goods and business under the said Trade Marl</Tradc Name in P.urope the Plaintiff • . ' ,i . has been expandingthe use of its saidTrade Mark/1rade Name inrelation to its said goods &businessto cover more and more countriesacrossthe globe. As of now the Plaintiffs said goods under its said Trade Mark/'Trade Name are branded and sold. In about 130 countries of the >1 world and across all continents and regions Including in India wherein in addition the Plaintiff also enjoys its trans-borderreputation and user. The Plaintiffsaid goods are sold and tradedby the Plaintiffdirectlyor through a wide network of its associates, affiliates, subsidiary companies,! licenseesand througha wide marketingnetwork includingthroughretail as also through internet and e-commerce. i|

¶4PW-1 has further deposed that plaintiffs Trade Mark L'OiyiAL word mark is duly registeredin Indiaunder the Trade Mark Act, 1999 (the Act)i I as per the following particular:- i

(a) Trade Mark Registration No. Date of Registration Description of goods Renewal Status

(b) 'Trade Mark C5(OS} 1390/2010 L'OREAL (word mark) 165778 Inclass 03 '

14.09.1954 i Perfumery, soaps, non-medicated! toilet preparations, shampoos, toilet preparations for permanent waving of hair, toilet preparations) (Coloured and otherwise) for the rinsing of hair, dyes for hair and;; beards, non-medicatedhair lotion, i Renewed and subsisting

14.9.2010. L'OREAL (LABEL) till Registration No Date of Registration Description of goods: Renewal Status

(c)Trade Mark: Registration No. Date of Registration Description of goods Renewal Status:

(d)Tradc Mark Registration No. CS(OS} 1990/2010 473298 in Class 03

08.06.1987 Perfumery preparations, essential oils, cosmetics, preparations for colouring and bleaching the hair, hair dyes and tints, | preparations for waving and setting the hair shampoos, hair sprays, non medicated preparations for the care and the beauty of the hair, non-medicated preparation for the care and the beauty of the skin, toilet soaps dentifrices, sun tan preparations personal deodorants. Renewed, legal, valid and subsisting: L'OMCAL LES TECHNICARES (word mark) 557907 In Class 03

05.09.1991 ; Perfumery preparations, essential oils, Cosmetics, preparations for; colouring and bleaching the hair,, hair dyes and tints, preparations for waving and setting ; hair, shampoos, hair sprays, non-! medicated preparations for the care, and the beautyofthe ski, toilet :| soaps, dentifrices, sun tan preparations, personal deodorants. Renewed, legal, valid and ^ subsisting: ' IVOREAL PROGRESS (word mark) 499858 in Class 03 Dale of Registration Description of goods: Renewal Status

(c)Trade Mark Registration No Date of Registration Description of goods Renewal Status

25.10.1988 Perfumery preparations, essential oils, cosmetics, preparations for colouring and bleaching the hair, hair dyes and tints, preparations for waving and setting hair shampoos, hair sprays, non-medicated preparations for the care and the beauty of the skin, toilet soaps, centifrices, personal deodorantsIncludedin Class 3. | Renewed, legal, valid and • subsisting: I.'OREAL PLENTITUDE (word mark) 477223 in Class 03

20.08.1987 Perfumery preparations, essential oils, cosmetics, preparations for] colouring and bleaching hairj hair dyes and tints, preparations for waving and setting the hair, shampoos, hair sprays, non medicated preparations for the care and the beauty of the hair non-' medicated preparations for the care and the beauty of the skin, toilet soaps, dentifrices,. sun tan preparations, personal deodorants. . Renewed, legal, valid and i subsisting

¶5PW-1 has further deposed that apart from the aforesaidregistrationthe ij I Plaintiffhas filed various other applicationsfor the registrationof its said; I frade Mark in India, most of which have already been allowed. A list i containing the particularsof Plaintiffs other registrationsand pendingj I applications, with respect to the said Trade Mark have been filed. It is also deposed that all registrations of the plaintiff are vahd and subsisting tiU date Plaintiffspendingapplicationsare likelyto be allowedin due coursp after completion of all formalities. The art work involved in the Plaintiffs various I.'OiyiAL stylized, formative/bearingand Label are original1 artistic works and the Plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of the I• Copyrights involved therein. The said Copyright of the Plaintiff are wel: known as by virtue of India's membership to the Berne Convention, Order 1991 and term I'rade Mark/Label shall refer and include artwork/copyright involved also. The Plaintiff has invariably been using its said Copyrights/Art Works/Label within the meaning of and as per Section 14 of the Copyright Act, in relation to his said goods anc business. PW-1 has next deposed that the Plaintiff has applied foi registration of the said Trade Mark L'ORliAL in over 100 countries of the , world and across all continents and regions. Most of the said applicatiom have been allowed and registrations in respect thereof are subsisting on the respective Registers of the respective countries. The Plaintiff pending; applications arc likely to be allowed in accordance with the respective ^ laws of the respectivecountries.PW-1 has also deposedthat the Plaintiffj has already built up a globally valuable trade under its said Trade!' I, Mark/Trade Name L'OI^iAL and conducted large business there under running into Millions of Dollars worldwide. The Plaintiff has regularly continuously been promoting its said distinctive Trade Marl<y^rradeName L'ORliAL and the goods and business there under through -extensive advertisements, publicities, promotions and marketing & marketing research and the Plaintiff has been spending enormous amounts of moneys, efforts, skills and time thereon.The Plaintiffhas been doing sp i-throughvariousmeans and modes includingthroughthe visual,printand |i electronicmedia, in leading Newspapers,trade literature& magazines,|| CS(OS)1990/2010 Page6 of16 r-word of mouth, over the internet etc and all of which have tremendous reach, availability and circulation world over including in India. PW-1 has i further deposed that in view of the aforesaid including the Plaintiffs, priority in adoption and use thereof, the Plaintiffs said Trade Marl-c/Trad3 Name L'OREAL have acquired enviable and enduring goodwill reputation and users, and which the Plaintiff owns, in the international | market including In India wherein In addition to the aforesaid the Plaintiff | alsoenjoystrans-borderreputationsandusersas extendingintoIndia. ji

¶6Ms.Surbhi Bansal, PW-1 has further deposed that the Plaintiffs said:. | I Trade Marl<;yTrade Name L'OR]iAI> have become distinctive, associated i and acquired secondary' significance with the Plaintiff and Plaintiffs said, goods and business. The purchasing public, the trade and industry at large ; worldwide and in India identify and distinguish the Plaintiffs said goods under the said Trade Mark/Trade Name with the Plaintiff and from the , Plaintiffs source and origin alone and regard them as a high quality i . 1; ! product exclusively as that of the Plaintiff The said Trade Mark/Trade ; Name L'OREAL is one of the oldest, most prominent and valuable Trade | ' i MarkAJrade Name of the PlaintiffThe Plaintiffis the proprietorthereof i as also of its goodwill and reputation under the statutory and commori i law. PW-1 has also deposed that the Plaintiffs said Trade Marl<yTrade | Name L'OI^iiAL as well as the goods and business there under have a ' very strong presence in India. The Plaintiff s, said goods under the said , Irade Marl<L/fradeName ,I..'()RL]yVLare freely and commerciallyavailable • in India Since over thi'ee decadesand as of now they are sold in over 300 major towns and cities in India. The Plaintiffs said goods and business under the said Irade Mark/Trade Name L'OI^AI. are duly manufactured in India in Its State of the art manufacturingplant, in strictcompliancewith L'Oreal worldwidequalitystandards,located,at CS(OS)1990/2010 Chakan,Punc, Maharashtra.M/s L'OrealIndia (?) Ltd. Chakan.Pune-4|' ; 0501, registeredofficeat 2'"' floor. PeninsulaTower,PeninsulaCorporate Tower G.K Marg Lower l^arel,Mumbai-400013is the exclusiveimporter i to import and sell the said Plaintiffsproducts in India. The import of j impugnedproductby any otherperson in Indiaexcept.Mis L'OrealIndi4

(P) Ltd. registered office at 2'"^ floor, Peninsula Tower. Peninsula | CorporateTower, G.K.Marg,Lower Parel,Mumbai-400013,is illegaland | does amountto infringementof the Plaintiffs afore mentionedI^ght.;j^he : Plaintiff employs large number of persons across India in its direct. ' facilities. The Plaintiff is massively advertising and promoting its said ' goods under the said Trade Mark/TradeName in India. Due to excellent- : quahty of Plaintiffs said goods and due to massive advertising the j Plaintiff has acquired reputation and goodwill in India. In addition ; the Plaintiff enjoys trans-border reputation and risers of its said Trade Mark/Trade Name in relation to its said goods and : I i business as extending Into India. The Plaintiff has been protecting and i enforcing its Trade Mark against pirate use/applicationsin India. The; i . I Plaintiffs products as well as Information thereon are available to Indiansj• ^ and Indian trade and Industry in India and overseas, 'fhe Plaintiff has:. been eaixying on and promoting its said goods and! business electronically and through H-commerce and even on the internet;, i! which is accessible in India. PW-1 has extracted the details of dealefs/j i special agents and C & PA agents in Delhi and adjoining areas with' whom the plaintiff is carrying on business: DEALERS/SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN DELHI S,NO NAME OF THE ADDRESS • ' DEALERS/SPECIAL AGENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF , IN DEI.HI

¶1M/s Anand 1Enterprises 136, Gautam Nagar, New Delhi- : 110016

¶2M/s Kwallty 1Enterprises 4/47, Roop Naqar, New Delhi-110007

¶3M/s Kapoor Agency

¶4M/s Panlcaj Store

¶5M/s GROP linteiprises C-2122, Jandc Puri New Delhi - 110058 X-81, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 B-94, Main Matiala Road, Uttam Nagar New Delhi C & FA AGENTS (CLEAMNG AND FORWARDING AGENTS) OF THE PLAINTIFF IN DELHI S.NO NAME OF THE C & FA ADDRESS AGENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF IN DELHI

¶1M/s Navbharat linterprises

¶2M/s Saru Enterprises

¶3M/s Croxlcy Distributors Khasra No.70,Village. Saidullajab Near Gyan Jyoti Vidya Niketan Saidullajab, New Deihi-110016 bagumpur Kotala Road. Behrampur Indl.Estate, 38"^ KM Mile StoneJaipur Highway, Gurgaon D-7. Meerut Road Industrial Area, Ghaziabad Pvt. Ltd

¶7PW-1 has airther deposed that the Plaintiff invests heavily in R & D and its products are Icnown for their highest standardsof quality, safety, innovationand reliabilityand there is an ever increasingdemand therefore. Ihe Plaintiffssaid goods and businessare known, recognized. CS(OS} 1990/2010 r demanded, sold and traded world over with reference to its said Trade; MarkArrade Name L'OIUiAL. The members of the trade industry the. consumers and general public at large world over and in the India are well •• " ' i aware of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff's said Trade Marl<yTradeName and the, ; Plaintiffs said goods and business there under. The Plaintiff said Trade Mark/Trade Name L'ORliAT. are well Icnown Trade Mark within meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act 1999. PW-1 has next deposed that in view of the Plaintiffs proprietary rights both statutory and common law in its said Trade Mark L'OREAL its goodwil &reputation,and its copyrights,the Plaintiffhas the exclusiverightsto thc^ use thereof and nobody can be permitted to use the same or any other deceptively similar Trade Marlc/Trade Name/copyrights thereto in any manner whatsoever in relation to any specification of goods without the leave and license of the Plaintiff

¶8PW-1 has stated that the Defendants no 1, i.e. M/s Aar-Kay Trading Co" and the Defendant No. 2, i.e. M/s Shakti Enterprise, are engaged in trading of cosmetics, toiletries, hair care products and other allied/related goods (hereinafter referred to as the impugned goods' & "impugned business") To the best of the Plaintiffs belief the Defendants No 1 & Defendants No, 2 are acting in connivance and in unison with each other. PW-1 has also deposed that defendant no.3 and the defendant no.4 are the concerned department of (jovernment of India at New Delhi and Kolkata respectively, which inter alia ensures that the illegal infringing products do not get imported into the Territory of India, inclusive of Delhi, No relief of injunction is being sought against the defendants No.3 and 4. The Defendants have adopted and started using the Trade Mark/Label L'ORKAI. with or without the word PARIS (hereinafter refen-ed to as the "impugned Trade Mark/Label") in relation to their Impugned goods } i The Dcicndants are also illegallyimportingthe impugnedgoods underthe ' | impugned Trade Mark/Label from the neighboring Country namely CHINA. The specimenof Defendant'ssaid Trade Marl</labelsare placed on recordand the same are exhibitedas EXHIBIT-PWl/3(Colly).In fac| the Defendants arc indulging in counterfeiting the products of the Plaintiff in completeviolationof Plaintiffs statutoryand common law right in the , Trade Mark and copyright.The impugnedTrade Mark/LabelL'OREAI • adopted and being used by the Defendants in relation to their impugnec ; 1^- goods and business are identical with and deceptivelysimilar to the Plaintiffs said Trade Mark/'frade Name in each and every respec including phonetically visually structurally, in its basic idea and in it5 essential features. The Defendants have also copied the artist featuree | Involved in the Plaintiffs Trade Mark and are thus infringing the Plaintiffs copyrightsinvolvedin its said TradeMark. The Defendants'are using al| kind of false description on its impugned goods to wrongly link the impugnedgoods with the Plaintiffand to wronglyconveyto the publicanc customers that the impugned goods are coming from the source and origin _ of the Plaintiff 'fhe impugned goods and business there under are also o the same/similar/allied/cognate to that of the Plaintiffs.

¶9PW-1 has further stated that the Defendants are not the proprietor of the impugned Trade Marlc/Labcl L'OREAL with or without the word PARIS and have adopted and are so using the same in relation to their Impugned goods and business and also reproducing it on their Label and packaging materials etc. and are otherwise dealing with it in the course of trade without the leave and license of the Plaintiff The Defendants have no rights to use it in any manner in relation to its impugned goods and business or for any other specification of goods and business whatsoever being in violation of the PlaintilTs rights therein. The Defendants by their impugned adoption/user/illcgalimport of the impugnedgoods under the impugned Trade Mark LORBAL are violating the Plaintiffs aforesaid Trade MarM.abel L'OREAL and thereby passing off and enabling others to pass off their impugnedgoods and business as that of the Plaintiff as well as well as diluting the Plaintiffs proprietary rights therein. The Defendants are further infringing Plaintiffs said Trade Mark L'OMiA]-. which is inter alia duly registered under different numbers viz. 165778 In class 03 557907 in class 03 etc. the Defendants are also guilty 7^- of infringingthe Copy Right of the Plaintiff involved in the said Trade J/ Marl<yLabcl.The Defendants are also guilty of Violating Plaintiffs right in the Trade Name. The Defendants cannot even be exonerated from the charges of falsification, unfair and unethical trade practices. The Defendants, besides using the impugned Trade Mark in relation to impugned goods arc also importing the same illegally from the neighboring Country namely CHINA. The Defendant are neither the authorized licensee to import the impugned L'OREAL products In India nor any consent has been taken from the Plaintiff nor its authorized licensee i.e. M/s L'Oreal India (P) Ltd (which is the exclusive importer to ^ Importthe saidPlaintiffsproductsmIndia)has beentaken.The importof the impugnedproductsby any otherperson in India except,M/s L' Oreal India (P) Ltd. is illegal and amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff s rights. The impugned activities of the Defendants are in violation of Section 2 (a) (b) (c) and Section 6 of the NotificationNo. 47 of 2007 Issued under Section 156 (1) read with Section 11 ( 2)(n)(u) of the Customs Act 1962 which provides "the import of infringing goods (infringingthe Trade Mark/Copyrightof the Right Holder) is prohibited under Section 11 of the Customs Act". The impugned activities of the Defendants are also liable to be restrained by virtue of Section 140 of the Psge 12 of 16 I' Trade Marks Act 1999 Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act 1962 and Section 112 (d) of the Customs Act 1962. PW-l has further stated that the illegal import/use of the impugned L'OREAL products by the Defendants is in violation of Section 29(6) (b) of the Trade Marks Act 1999 as Defendants are not the proprietor of the impugned Trade Mark/Label. The Impugned import/use oi" the impugned products by the Defendants amounts to infringement of the registered Trade Mark of the Plaintiff and hence the same is in violation of Section 29(6) (b) of the Act.

¶10PW-1 has next deposed that the Defendants are fully aware of the Plaintiffs right, goodwill, reputations, benefits and users etc. in the Plaintiffs said Trade Marl</Trade Name at the time of his impugned adoption and use of the impugned Trade Mark/Label L'ORJtAL with or without the word PARIS. The resemblance between the rival Trade Mark are so close that it can hardly occur except by deliberate imitation. The Defendants have adopted and started using impugned Trade Mark/Label L'OI^^^AL With or without the word PARIS' dishonesty, fraudulently and out of positive greed with a view to take advantage and to trade upon the established goodwillreputation and proprietary right of the Plaintiff in the Plaintiffs Trade Mark/Trade Name L'OREAL. That due to the Defendants' impugned activities, the Plaintiff is suffering losses both in business and in reputation and such losses are incapable of being assessed in monetary ternis, besides unwai7 purchasers and members of the trade are being deceived as to the origin of goods and business. PW-1 has also deposed that the Defendants are liable to pay damages to the Plaintiff which the Plaintiff conservatively and in a restricted manner claims to the tune of 20,01.000/- (Rs Twenty Lacks and One Thousand), even though the Plaintiff is entitled to much more. CSiOS) 1990/2Q10 Page 13 of IS < I I.

¶11PW-1 has deposed that in the month of April 2010 the Custom office, Tuklilakabad New Delhi informed the illegal import of the L'OREAL products by the Defendant No.l into India in the month of June 2010, the Plaintiff became aware of illegalimport of impugned L'Ol^AL products by the DefendantNo. 2. Accordinglythe Plaintiffjoined the proceedings before the Custom office lukhlakabao. New Delhi and the impugned products of the Defendants under the impugned Trade Mark were seized. The Plaintiffs further enquiry into the market and Trade it is revealed to the Plaintiff that the Defendants are still using/importing/sellingthe impugned products under the impugned Trade Marlc/LabelL'OREALThe Plaintiff also learnt that the Defendants are carrying on its impugned activities under impugned Trade Mark in a clandestine and surreptitiousmanner from their respectiveshop/premisesand are having godowns where the Impugned goods have been stocked Defendants are not only making the retail sales but are also supplying the impugned goods bearing impugned Trade Mark to various other dealers/shopkeepers/retailers in Delhi including South Delhi that too Without issuing formal sale bills, who are making the clandestine and surreptitioussales thereof to the ultimate unwary consumers in Delhi.

12.1 have heard leaned counsel for the plaintiff and also carefullyperused the affidavit by way of evidence, which has been filed by the constituted attorney of the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff remained unrebutted. In the affidavit the plaintiff has deposed that adoption of the word L'OREAL relates back to the year 1900. The plaintiff since 1910-1915 has been using the word L'OREAL word per se as a trade mark, which is an invented word. The products of the plaintiff are sold in approximately 130 countries of the world including India and enjoy immense trans-border reputation on account of its long user and vide network. The plaintiff has been able to establish that the trade mark L'ORJiAL word mark is duly registered in India under the Trade Marks Act and the date of registration relates back to the year 1964. The trade mark has been renewed from time to time. Details of various trade marks of the plaintiff have also been relied upon. The plaintiff has also been able to show that the copyright/art work/label are the artistic work of the plaintifl, who is the owner and the proprietor of the copyright. The plaintiff has built up its reputation globally and carries on business running into million of dollars worldwide. The plaintiff has been continuously promoting the trade mark L'OI^iAL and its goods thi-ough extensive advertisements, publicity, promotion, marketing and marketing research and enormous sums of money has been spent on the same. On account of its goodwill and reputation, which the plaintiff has earned, with a long passage of time the purchasing public, trade and industry at large worldwide and in India identifies and distinguishes the plaintiffs goods under the trade mark L'ORJiAL with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also been able to show that it has a sljong presence in India for more than tlirce decades and goods are sold in over 300 major towns and cities in India. I am satisfied that the mark L'OREAL is a well known trade mark within the meaning of Section 2 (z) (g) of the Trade Marks Act, 1991, and the proprietary rights - both statutory and under common law with respect to its trade mark L'OREAL - vests with the plaintiff The plaintiff has the exclusive right over the trade mark and its copyright and the plaintiff alone has the exclusive right to use the same. The adoption by defendants no.l and 2 of the mark L'OWiAL without the word Paris is illegal and importingthe goods from neighbouringcountrieslike China, withoutthe consent and concurrence of the plaintiff, has also been established.Ihd use of the word L'OI^iAL by the defendantshave violatedthe statutor>|| 15 of 16 \ # 1^ and common law and the defendants are trying to pass of their goods as that of the plaintiff, which is likely to dilute the plaintiffs proprietary rights. The plaintiffs trade mark is duly registeredand the defendants cannot be permitted to infringe upon the rights of the plaintiff. The defendantsare also guiltyof infringingthe copyrightsof the plaintiff.The defendants are also selling, identical goods with the identicaltrade mark as that of the plaintiffwith a view to ride overthe goodwillandreputation of the plaintiff.

13.Plaintiff has also claimed damages for loss of reputation, business and cost of proceedings.The defendanthas deliberatelystayedaway from the presentproceedingswith the result that an enquiry into the accounts of the defendant for determination of damages cannot take place. I'he infringementof the trademarkof the plaintiffis not in. dispute. Counsel for the plaintiff in support of his case has placed reliance on Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastavaand Anr., 2005 (30) FTC 3 (Del) where apart from compensatorydamagesof Rs.5 lakhs, punitivedamages have also been awarded. Justice .R.C. Chopra, has set out in Time Incorporated's case (supra) that punitive damages are founded on the philosophy of corrective justice.

14.Accordingly,presentsuit is decreedin terms of para 37 (a) and (f) of the plaint.Plaintiffwould be entitledto damagesto the tune of Rs.3.00laldis. Decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly. G.S.SLSTANI,, " 30,20,2 f\ Page 16 of