Allowed

Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B v. Vs Amit Duggal & Anr.

Delhi HC12 Jul 2016CS(OS)/808/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Delhi decreed an ex-parte suit filed by Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B.V. for trademark infringement and passing off. The Court found that the defendants failed to appear and that the plaintiff made out a case for permanent injunction and damages.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunction per plaint para 35(a) and (b); damages of Rs.5 lakhs; costs of suit; counsels' fee Rs.25,000/-.

Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B v Vs Amit Duggal & Anr. — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

$~16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CS(OS) 808/2015 TOMMY HILFIGER LICENSING B.V. ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr. S.K. Bansal, Mr. Pran Krishna Jana, Mr. Amit Chanchal Jha and Mr. Vinay Shukla, Advs.

¶4

Versus

¶5

AMIT DUGGAL & ANR ..... Defendants Through: None.

¶6

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

¶7

% 12.07.2016

¶8

The plaintiff has sued for injunction restraining the two defendants Mr. Amit Duggal and Mr. S.K. Duggal located at Ludhiana, Punjab from infringing the registered trademark / label TOMMY HILFIGER, TOMMY, HILFIGER, HILFIGER DENIM, TOMMY GIRL and the FLAG Logo of the plaintiff and from passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff and for ancillary reliefs.

¶9

Summons of the suit were issued and vide ex-parte ad-interim order dated 20^th May, 2015 the defendants restrained from manufacturing, distributing, supplying or selling their products using the plaintiff’s registered trademarks aforesaid or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the aforesaid trademarks of the plaintiff. A Court Commissioner was also appointed to visit the premises of the defendants and to seize the infringing goods.

¶10

The Commissioner has reported that the infringing goods were seized by the Police in pursuance to a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the CS(OS) 808/2015 Page 1 of 2

¶11

plaintiff and that defendants claimed that they were not maintaining any books of accounts.

¶12

The defendants failed to appear before this Court despite service and were vide order dated 3^rd November, 2015 proceeded against ex-parte and the ad-interim order was made absolute.

¶13

The plaintiff has led its ex-parte evidence.

¶14

On going through the ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff including the documents proved by the plaintiff, I am satisfied that a case for decreeing the suit for the relief of injunctions as claimed is made out.

¶15

The counsel for the plaintiff relies on Sholay Media And Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Parag Sanghavi 2015 (64) PTC 546 (Del) on the aspect of damages.

¶16

Even otherwise, the plaintiff has made out a case for award of damages in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs recoverable jointly and severally from the two defendants.

¶17

Accordingly, the suit is decreed (i) for the relief of injunction in terms of para 35(a) and (b) of the plaint; (ii) for the relief of recovery of damages in the sum of Rs.5 lakhs jointly and severally from the two defendants; and (iii) for the relief of costs of this suit; counsels fee assessed at Rs.25,000/-.

¶18

Decree sheet be drawn up.

¶19

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

¶20

JULY 12, 2016 bs..

¶21

Page 2 of 2

¶22

CS(OS) 808/2015

Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B v. Vs Amit Duggal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tommy Hilfiger Licensing B v. Vs Amit Duggal & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashpal Gosain Vs Nand Kishore Gosain and Ors.

Radhey Shyam Vs Azad Singh

Rrb Energy Limited Vs Vestas Wind Systems & Anr.

Santosh Kumar Tiwari Vs Brij Bhushan Tiwari

Rahul Bose Vs Piyal Bose

Prime Time India Ltd. Vs Ashok Kapoor and Ors. a+

Kamlesh Khanna Vs Gurcharan Lal Harjai & Ors.

Shital Singh & Others Vs Manmohan Singh & Others

Mobile Telesystems Ojsc & Anr. Vs Lalit Waghani & Anr.

Snehlata Kataria Vs Rajbala

Smt Anjali Arya Vs Sh. Shri Niwas Gupta & Ors.

Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited Vs Novabase Digital Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.

Ricoh India Limited Vs Nayan Bhimani Patel

Pepsico, Inc. & Anr. Vs M/S Sahyadri Beverages & Ors.