Disposed

Sandisk Llc, & Anr. v. Pankaj Bajaj & Anr.

Delhi HC4 May 2018CS(COMM)/854/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court decreed a suit for permanent injunction restraining trade mark infringement. Upon defendants consenting to the terms, the Court directed delivery of seized goods to plaintiffs and ordered compensation. This order discharged an earlier order giving final relief in the main suit.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed. Seized goods handed over to plaintiffs. Defendants ordered to pay compensation.

Sandisk Llc, & Anr. Vs Pankaj Bajaj & Anr. — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 854/2017 & I.A.No.15013/2017

¶4

SANDISK LLC, & ANR

¶5

..... Plaintiffs

¶6

Through Mr.Prithvi Singh with Mr.Utkarsh Joshi, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

PANKAJ BAJAJ & ANR ..... Defendants Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 04.05.2018

¶12

I.A.No.4247/2018

¶13

Keeping in view the averments made in the application and the large seizure at the proposed applicant’s shop, this Court is of the view that the proposed applicant-defendant no.2 is a necessary and proper party.

¶14

Consequently, the present application is allowed and the applicant is impleaded as defendant no.2 in the memo of parties.

¶15

Let an amended memo of parties be filed within a period of one week.

¶16

I.A.No.15017/2017

¶17

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the confidential affidavit filed by the plaintiffs in a sealed cover is taken on record. Registry is directed to keep the same in a sealed cover only.

¶18

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

¶19

CS(COMM) 854/2017 & I.A.No.15013/2017

¶20

Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, trade dress, copyright, passing off, rendition of account of profits, damages and delivery up.

¶21

This Court vide a detailed order dated 15^th December, 2017, restrained the defendants, their partners, proprietors, servants, agents and all others in active concert with them from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in infringing products/product packaging bearing the plaintiffs’ trade mark ‘SanDisk’ and the ‘Red Frame’ logo.

¶22

Two local commissioners were also appointed to visit the different sites in question. While 4691 infringing pieces were seized from the shop of defendant no.1, 485 infringing pieces were seized from the shop of defendant no.2.

¶23

Defendant nos.1 & 2 are personally present in Court. They state that they have no objection if the present suit is decreed in accordance with prayers (a) and (b) of the plaint. They, however, pray for leniency with regard to costs and damages.

¶24

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs have no objection if the present suit is decreed provided reasonable costs and damages are paid and the seized goods are handed over to an authorized representative of the plaintiffs for destruction purposes.

¶25

The defendants who appear in person have no objection to the same.

¶26

Consequently, the present suit is decreed in accordance with

¶27

prayers (a) and (b) of the present suit and the seized goods in possession of defendant no.2 are directed to be handed over to an authorized representative of the plaintiffs on 11^th May, 2018 at 4.00 P.M. The defendant no.2 is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.25,000/- in five equated monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid by defendant no.2 on 11^th May, 2018 itself.

¶28

The goods seized from the shop of defendant no.1 shall be handed over to Mr.Gaurav Singh on 11^th May, 2018 at 4.00 P.M. and the balance goods lying with the Registry of this Court shall be handed over by the Joint Registrar to an authorized representative of the plaintiff on 10^th May, 2018. The defendant no.1 shall pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in five equated monthly instalments and the first of such instalments shall be paid by defendant no.2 on 11^th May, 2018. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.

¶29

MANMOHAN, J

¶30

MAY 04, 2018 KA

Sandisk Llc, & Anr. v. Pankaj Bajaj & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandisk Llc, & Anr. v. Pankaj Bajaj & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sonia Syal Vs Reliance Capital Asset Managment Limited

Kuldip Singh Kalra Vs Balsam Publishing House & Anr.

M/S Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Sejal Glass Ltd. & Ors.

Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited Vs Maharaja Cable Network

Louis Vuitton Malletier Vs Tarundeep Singh & Ors.

Rishabh Enterprises & Another Vs Ameet Lalchand Shah & Others

Bayer Intellectual Property Gmbh & Anr. Vs a Srivastava & Anr.

M/S Jubilant Life Sciences Limited Vs Punjab National Bank & Ors.

M/S Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Sejal Glass Ltd. & Ors.

The Procter & Gamble Company Vs Mr. Mahesh Chandra & Ors.

Sanjay Anand Vs Sunil Kumar Kapoor

M/S H T Media Limited Vs Mr Faisal Masood & Ors.

Sandisk Llc, & Anr. Vs Devaram Choudhary & Anr.

Rohtash Kumar & Anr. Vs Subhash Chand & Anr.