Allowed

Mars Incorporated v. Galaxy Family Food Products Pvt.Ltd.

Bombay HC3 Aug 2011S/1535/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this copyright and trade mark infringement suit, the court decreed the plaintiff's claim despite the defendant's absence and non-filing of written statement. The court accepted plaint averments, drew an adverse inference against the absent defendant regarding damages, and awarded nominal damages.

What did the court decide?

The suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d) and (k). Costs to be quantified as per rules. Refund, if any, as per rules.

Mars Incorporated Vs Galaxy Family Food Products Pvt.Ltd. — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2011)

s1535-03

vai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

SUIT NO.1535 OF 2003

¶6

Mars Incorporated ....Plaintiff

¶7

V/s.

¶8

Galaxy Family Food Products Pvt. Ltd. ....Defendants

¶9

Mr.Ramesh Gajria i/b M/s.Gajria & Co. for the Plaintiff.

¶10

None for the Defendants.

¶11

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 3RD AUGUST, 2011.

¶12

P.C. :-

¶13

This is an action for infringement of a registered trade mark, copyright and for passing off. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the word mark ‘GALAXY” under class 30. The mark is registered with effect from 31.10.1960. The mark is also registered by the plaintiff in various countries. The sales of the plaintiff’s products under the said mark in the year 1992 were of the value of US $ 11,63,40,000. The same increased every year. In India, the sales in the year 1992 were of the value of US $ 18,18,00,00. The same increased every year. In the year 2001, the sales in India were of the value of US $ 64,00,00,00.

¶14

The defendant has adopted the mark “GALAXY” in respect of its products. It has also used the word mark in its corporate name.

¶15

¶16

s1535-03

¶17

The defendants have not filed the written statement. The defendants are absent. There is nothing on record that militates against the averments and submissions made in the plaint. Further, it is pertinent to note that an ad-interim order was passed on 25.6.2003. The defendants remained absent at that stage. Thereafter, an interim order was passed on 6.10.2005 in the same terms. The defendants were absent even on that occasion. In these circumstances, I am inclined to accept the averments and submissions made in the plaint as being correct. I, therefore, refused the plaintiff’s application for time to lead evidence.

¶18

The plaintiff has claimed only nominal damages of Rs. 51,000/- I am inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendants on account of their having remained absent throughout to the effect that they have remained absent, knowing that if their records had been produced, the plaintiff’s case even regarding damages, would have been established.

¶19

In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers

¶20

(a), (b), (c), (d) and (k). The costs to be quantified as per rules.

¶21

Refund, if any, as per rules.

Mars Incorporated v. Galaxy Family Food Products Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mars Incorporated v. Galaxy Family Food Products Pvt.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Shailendra R. Patel and Narendra R. Patel

Citicorp Finance (India ) Ltd. Vs Sanjeev Obhan and Anr.

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Manjoor Ahmed Mubarak Nadaf

Iqbal J. Kazi and Rashida I. Kazi Vs Riyaz a. Kondakari

Lajwanti Kripaldas Shewani Vs Vasudeo Khatanmal Pherwani

L and T Finance Ltd. Vs Boreddy Narsi Reddy S/O Obul Reddy and Anr.