The Delhi High Court granted a summary judgment to the plaintiff for trademark infringement. Considering unrebutted allegations and prior seizures, the Court awarded damages of Rs. 1,00,000 per defendant and passed an injunction decree.
Summary judgment granted; injunction decree passed; damages of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded per defendant.
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
SANDISK LLC & ANR. ..... Plaintiffs
Through: Ms. Devyani Nath and Mr. Srinivas Venkat, Advs.
versus
MAHAVISHNU MOBILE ACCESSORIES & ANR. ..... Defendants Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R D E R
% 24.04.2024
I.A. 7027/2024 ( Exemption from filing original/clearer copies etc. )
I.A. 7026/2024 ( under Order XIII-A, CPC seeking summary judgment )
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
Prayer in para 49 (a) – (f) of the plaint.
logo, ‘ Cruzer Blade ’ and the ‘ Red Frame Logo ’, or any other mark which is confusingly or deceptively similar thereto, amounting to infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademark.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
“ 41 . Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the rule of thumb that should be followed while granting damages can be summarised in a chart as under:—
| # | Degree of mala fide conduct |
Proportionate award |
|---|---|---|
| (i) | First-time innocent infringer |
Injunction |
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
| (ii) | First-time knowing infringer |
Injunction + Partial Costs |
|---|---|---|
| (iii) | Repeated knowing infringer which causes minor impact to the Plaintiff |
Injunction + Costs + Partial damages |
| (iv) | Repeated knowing infringer which causes major impact to the Plaintiff |
Injunction + Costs + Compensatory damages. |
| (v) | Infringement which was deliberate and calculated (Gangster/scam/ mafia) + wilful contempt of court. |
Injunction + Costs + Aggravated damages (Compensatory + additional damages) |
42 . It is clarified that the above chart is illustrative and is not to be read as a statutory provision. The Courts are free to deviate from the same for good reason .”
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
with, inter alia , in para 20 wherein reference to Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited , ILR (2014) 2 Del 1288, was made. It has been noted that the Courts have upheld the usage of rough and ready calculation for award of damages.
“ 20. Damages/Account of profits
A party seeking damages/account of profits, shall give a reasonable estimate of the amounts claimed and the foundational facts/account statements in respect thereof along with any evidence, documentary and/or oral led by the parties to support such a claim. In addition, the Court shall consider the following factors while determining the quantum of damages:
(i) Lost profits suffered by the injured party;
(ii) Profits earned by the infringing party;
(iii) Quantum of income which the injured party may have earned through royalties/license fees, had the use of the subject IPR been duly authorized;
(iv) The duration of the infringement;
(v) Degree of intention/neglect underlying the infringement;
(vi) Conduct of the infringing party to mitigate the damages being incurred by the injured party;
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
In the computation of damages, the Court may take the assistance of an expert as provided for under Rule 31 of these Rules. ”
ANISH DAYAL, J
APRIL 24, 2024/MK
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/05/2024 at 12:21:47
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a summary judgment in proceedings for trademark infringement where defendants failed to rebut the case.
Whether damages at Rs. 1,00,000 per defendant are appropriate for the infringement of SanDisk trademarks.
How the quantum of damages should be assessed in intellectual property infringement cases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Koninlijke Philips N.V. v. AmazestoreRelied on¶51
Koninlijke Philips N.V. v. Amazestore, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8198 · Who else cites this
Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Sham MurariRelied on¶59
Inter Ikea Systems BV v. Sham Murari, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11221 · Who else cites this
Puma SE v. Ashok KumarFollowed¶58
Puma SE v. Ashok Kumar, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6764 · Who else cites this
Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser India LimitedReferred¶62
Hindustan Unilever Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited, ILR (2014) 2 Del 1288 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anish Dayal
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
