Court passes decree for permanent injunction in favor of plaintiff for trademark infringement. Finds defendants entitled to dismissal due to absence and non-filing of written statement, allowing plaintiff to proceed ex-parte. Awards costs.
Permanent injunction against defendants; costs of suit against Defendant No.1.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~12
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R
order dated 9th May, 2016 all the defendants were proceeded against exparte and the plaintiff relegated to leading ex-parte evidence.
Page 2 of 3
agreement with GAIAM International to be in force, also expired and thereafter the defendant No.1 did not pursue CS(OS) 777/2010 and which was disposed of and thereafter defendant No.1 stopped appearing in this suit also.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
FEBRUARY 05, 2018 ns..
Page 3 of 3
CS(OS) 2028/2011
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction for trademark infringement given the failure of defendants to resist the suit.
Whether the plaintiff needs to be relegated to ex-parte evidence due to non-filing of evidence.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs from the defendant.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The BRAINY CO. LLC
EAGLE HOME ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
As recorded by the court registry
A civil suit filed on the original side of a High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
