In an interim ex parte hearing, the court held registered design infringement, dismissed judge-framed issues requiring defendant proof, and adjudged damages and costs on uncontested claim.
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.
+ CS(COMM) 1366/2016
STEELBIRD HI-TECH INDIA LTD. .... Plaintiff Through: Ms. Diva Arora & Mr. Mudit Tayal, Advs.
Versus
ASIA FIBRE GLASS PRODUCTS & ANR. …...Defendants Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
Page 1 of 7
CS(COMM) No.1366/2016
was allowed and the amended plaint taken on record. The defendants though had filed written statement earlier, did not file written statement to the amended plaint and vide order dated 6th December, 2017.
Page 2 of 7
CS(COMM) No.1366/2016
Page 3 of 7
CS(COMM) No.1366/2016
“1. Whether the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the design of its helmets registered under No.241153 dated 1st December, 2011? OPP
2. Whether this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit? OPD.
3. Whether the plaintiff’s design of its helmets registered under No.241153 dated 1st December, 2011 is not new, novel and has been prior published before the grant of the said registration? OPD
4. Whether the suit suffers from delay, latches and acquiescence? OPD
5. Whether the defendants’ use of the design of a helmet under the mark “MONARCH” which is identical/substantially similar to the plaintiff’s prior registered design under No.241153 dated 1st December, 2011 constitutes infringement of the plaintiff’s registered design under No.241153 dated 1st December, 2011 and if so, to what effect? OPP
6. Whether the helmet design of the plaintiff has functional components or is purely appealing to the eye? OPD
7. Whether the present suit is barred for lack of sufficient court fee? OPD
8. Relief.”
and the parties relegated to evidence.
Page 4 of 7
CS(COMM) No.1366/2016
vide order dated 10th October, 2019 and since none else appeared for the defendants, the matter placed before the Court. On 16th October, 2019, the defendants were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte and it was enquired from the counsel for the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff wanted to press the suit for reliefs other than of injunction also. On the counsel for the plaintiff replying in the affirmative, the plaintiff was relegated to leading ex parte evidence. The plaintiff has examined Vishal Vij as PW1 and Yogesh Arora as PW2 and closed its ex parte evidence. The suit is listed today for final hearing. I have heard the counsel for the plaintiff.
Page 5 of 7
CS(COMM) No.1366/2016
infringement of design of the helmet by the defendants was in the sum of Rs.6,40,57,500/-. The said witness also deposed of the plaintiff having incurred expenses of about Rs.3,15,000/- in the litigation till then.
prayer paragraph 28(a) of the plaint dated 23rd September, 2016; (b) recovery of damages in the sum of Rs.96,08,625/-; and , (c) recovery of costs of Rs.3,15,000/- as deposed by PW2 Yogesh Arora in his ex parte evidence to have been incurred by the plaintiff.
Decree sheet be drawn up.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
FEBRUARY17, 2020
„gsr‟..
Page 7 of 7
CS(COMM) No.1366/2016
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the defendants' use of a helmet design substantially similar to the plaintiff's registered design constitutes infringement?
Whether the suit suffered from delay, laches, and acquiescence given the defendants' prior business operations?
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of damages and costs based on unrebutted ex parte evidence?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
STEELBIRD HI-TECH INDIA LTD.
ASIA FIBRE GLASS PRODUCTS
A.S. Aslam
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
As recorded by the court registry
A suit of a commercial nature above the specified value, governed by the Commercial Courts Act 2015.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
