Allowed

Sap Ag & Anr. v. Suji Kumar & Anr.

Delhi HC2 Sept 2016CS(OS)/2207/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court, upon hearing an ex-parte suit where defendants failed to contest after interim injunctions were in force for nearly a decade, found a prima facie case for permanent injunction and passed a decree in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants. Costs were borne by each party.

What did the court decide?

A decree for permanent injunction as prayed in prayer paragraph 38 (a), (b) & (c) of the plaint.

Sap Ag & Anr. Vs Suji Kumar & Anr. — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

CS(OS) NO.2207/2006 SAP AG & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr. Deb Jyoti Ghosh, Adv.

¶3

Versus

¶4

SUJI KUMAR & ANR ..... Defendants Through: None.

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R

¶7

% 02.09.2016

¶8

The two plaintiffs namely SAP AG and SAP India Systems have instituted this suit for permanent injunction to restrain the two defendants namely Mr. Suji Kumar and SAPzen Consulting Pvt. Ltd. from reproducing/installing or providing training on software programs of the plaintiffs, including but not limited to SAP 4.7E and from using the mark ‘SAP’ either by itself or in conjunction with any other word or mark as a trademark or as a trade style, amounting to infringement of plaintiffs’ registered trademark and for ancillary reliefs.

¶9

The suit was entertained and vide ex-parte ad-interim order dated 30^th November, 2006, the defendants restrained from using the software SAP 4.7E and/or from imparting training on the said software and Court Commissioners appointed to visit the premises of the defendants and to seize the pirated/infringing software. Vide subsequent order dated 5^th December, 2006, the defendants were also restrained from using the mark ‘SAP’, either as a trade name or as a trade style. The said orders continue in force till now.

¶10

CS(OS) NO.2207/2006

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

The defendants appeared in response to the summons and filed a written statement. However subsequently the counsel for the defendants sought discharge and none appeared for the defendants and the defendants were, on 22^nd September, 2010, proceeded against ex-parte and plaintiffs permitted to lead ex-parte evidence.

¶13

The counsel for the plaintiffs, on enquiry, states that the Court Commissioners appointed reported seizure of the pirated/infringing copies of the plaintiffs’ software at the premises of the defendants.

¶14

The plaintiffs in their ex-parte evidence have examined Mr. Yogesh Goyal and closed their evidence.

¶15

I have perused the pleadings and the evidence of the plaintiffs and find the plaintiffs to have made out a case for grant of permanent injunction in terms of prayer paragraph 38 (a), (b) & (c) of the plaint.

¶16

The counsel for the plaintiffs states that since interim injunction has continued for the last nearly ten years and the defendants have not contested the suit, the plaintiffs are not pressing for the ancillary reliefs claimed.

¶17

Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants jointly and severally in terms of prayer paragraph 38 (a), (b) & (c) of the plaint.

¶18

The parties to bear their own costs.

¶19

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶20

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶21

SEPTEMBER 02, 2016

¶22

bs..

¶23

Page 2 of 2

¶24

CS(OS) NO.2207/2006

Sap Ag & Anr. v. Suji Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sap Ag & Anr. v. Suji Kumar & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Walia Builders Vs Som Dutt Builders Ltd.

Kads Fashion Vs Frontline Fashions Unlimited & Anr.

Rajnesh Pathak Vs Karuna Lakhanpal & Ors.

Sh. Chander Prakash Kumra and Ors. Vs Smt. Seema Bhargava Ac+

Y.D.Builders and Hotels Vs DDA Fc+

M/S Y.D.Builders & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Delhi Development Authority (Dda) Fc+

Kamla Family Trust Vs Air India Ac+

Shri Vivan Mehra Vs Smt. Gita Kwatra & Ors. Bc+

Designwise India Private Limited Vs M/S Globus Interior and Anr.

Walia Builders Vs Som Dutt Builders Ltd.

Baljit Kaur Jain Vs Ajay Kumar Jain

Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Vs City Palace Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. F+ B+

Bharat Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajesh Sachdeva & Anr.

Accord Alloys Limited Vs M/S Pee Ell Alloys and Another