Suit for permanent injunction over the plaintiff's BEARDO mark; defendants 1 and 2 failed to appear. Court decreed injunction against them under Order VIII Rule 10, awarded costs, and disposed the suit with a take-down arrangement with defendant no.3 (Amazon).
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.
$~10
ZED LIFESTYLE PVT LTD
..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Mr.Nikhil Sharma, & Mr. Sumit Wadhwa, Advs.
versus
HARDIK MUKESHBHAI PANSHERIYA & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Ms. R. Ramya, Adv. for D-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R D E R % 14.02.2024 I.A. 18235/2023 (under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC)
as part of trade mark, or part of trade names, corporate names, domain names or email addresses. Directions for ex parte ad interim injunction were passed by this Court on 4th May,
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 17/12/2024 at 15:43:11
2021 in the following terms:
“16. In view thereof, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to ex parte ad interim relief, so that further infringement of their registered trademarks by the defendants is prevented. Accordingly, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are restrained from using the "BEARDO" mark or any mark identical or deceptively similar thereto, or containing the device of a bearded man, in conjunction with the said word mark or in relation to any goods, save and except those in respect of which the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 possess registrations in Classes 7 and 11. Defendant No. 3 is also directed to ensure that the products of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are forthwith removed from the "BEARDO STORE" webpage maintained by amazon.in. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are also restrained from reflecting their products, on any website on the internet as being sold by "BEARDO STORE".”
2. Subsequently, by order dated 16th August, 2021 further directions were
passed on the following terms:
“12. As such, Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are restrained from using the mark "BEARDO" by itself or in conjunction with any other figure, whether of a bearded man or otherwise, in respect of any Class or goods, including goods falling in Classes 7 and 11, till further orders.
13. Defendant No. 3, who is also represented by Ms. Neha Jain, is also directed to remove, from its website, all pages which relate to sale of goods by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, using the "BEARDO" mark, irrespective of the Class, category or nature of goods in respect of which the mark is being used. Inter alia, Defendant No: 3 would be required to take down, from its website, the listings at pages 31 to 136 of the documents with the present plaint.”
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 17/12/2024 at 15:43:11
nos. 1 and 2 to file written statement stood closed. Accordingly, judgment is sought against defendant nos. 1 and 2 in these circumstances.
“A decree of permanent injunction against the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their, successors, franchisees, licensees, distributors, representatives, assignees, agents, and any one acting for and/ or on their behalf from using any mark identical/ deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s mark BEARDO/BEARDO formative marks containing device of a bearded man either by itself or in conjunction with any other word, as a trade mark or as part of trade mark, trade name or part of a trade name, corporate name or part of a corporate name, as a domain name or part of a domain name, as an email address or part of an email address or in any manner whatsoever in relation to its goods/services.”
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 17/12/2024 at 15:43:12
purpose it has been agreed between the plaintiff and defendant no.3 that in the event any presence / listing of sale of goods is found using ‘BEARDO’ mark of the plaintiff, irrespective of class, category or nature of goods, on the defendant no.3’s e-commerce platform, including the plaintiff’s Amazon Store, a communication would be addressed on the following email addresses by the plaintiff / plaintiff’s counsel:
Upon receipt of such information, defendant no.3 shall take down such listings within 72 hours and send confirmation of the same to the plaintiff / plaintiff’s counsel.
ANISH DAYAL, J
FEBRUARY 14, 2024/SM/ ig
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 17/12/2024 at 15:43:12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a decree of permanent injunction could be granted against defendants 1 and 2 who did not enter appearance or file written statement.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
HARDIK MUKESHBHAI PANSHERIYA & ORS.
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
