Bennett Coleman and Company Limited Vs Timespro Consulting LLP & Ors.

This application has been filed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”), by the plaintiff seeking pronouncement of a judgment and decree in the suit in terms of para 36 clause (a-f) of the plaint.

¶11

It is stated in the said application that pursuant to order dated 04^th November, 2022, when this Court passed e x parte ad interim injunction, inter alia , restraining the defendants and all those acting on their behalf from using the mark ‘TIMESPRO CONSULTING’ as a trademark, trade name, domain name, email, social media identifier or in any other manner which was identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademarks TIMES, TIMESPRO, TIMES PROPERTY & TIMES formative mark in relation to business purposes

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶14

which were identical or similar to those of the plaintiff, as well as other reliefs and directions.

¶15

Plaintiff complied with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC and duly served the defendants through e-mail, registered post, and accordingly placed on record an affidavit of service dated 07^th November 2022.

¶16

Defendants appeared through counsel before this Court, however, they did not file their written statement within the statutory period of 120 days. Accordingly, the ex parte ad interim injunction granted on 4^th November 2022 was made absolute by this Court on 04^th May 2023.

¶17

Defendants have failed to appear on multiple dates thereafter. These facts are noted in order of the Joint Registrar dated 10^th January 2024, including noting that counsel for the defendant was also served and has acknowledged the receipt of the notice, but has refused to file any replies.

¶18

Accordingly, their opportunity to file replies stood closed.

¶19

Plaintiff’s counsel inter alia also adverts to the fact that trademark ‘TIMESPRO’ along with device ‘TIMESPRO’ are registered since 2013, with user in the mark ‘TIMES’ since 1838.

¶20

Plaintiff’s counsel submits that plaintiff has applied for and obtained registration for the trademark TIMESPRO in India in respect of various goods and services. The details of such registrations are provided hereinbelow:

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶23

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶24

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶25

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶26

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶27

Plaintiff’s counsel further submits that the extent of goodwill and reputation that the trademark TIMESPRO has acquired is evident from the volume of annual revenue and promotional expenses pertaining to such business as set out herein below:

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶30

Furthermore, plaintiff’s counsel submits that plaintiff has successfully initiated several legal proceedings from time to time to protect its intellectual property against several parties who attempted to misappropriate the goodwill and reputation vested in trademark TIMES by adopting and using the trade mark TIMES by itself or in conjunction with other words or logos for a variety of goods, business or services. The details of some of the orders passed by this Court are given below:

¶31

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶32

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶33

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶34

This is a digitally signed order.

¶35

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶36

In view of the facts and circumstances, and since the averments in the plaint stand unrebutted, the plaintiff would be entitled for the decree as prayed for in the said application.

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶39

Accordingly, decree sheet be drawn up in terms of the following:

¶40

(a) Defendants, its franchisees and all persons claiming right through them are permanently injuncted from using mark/ trade name/ domain name, email and on social media platforms, including but not limited to:

¶41

(i) https://www.facebook.com/TimesproConsultingLLP; (ii) www. instagram.com/timesproconsulting_llp; (iii) https://twitter.com/timesproconsult;

¶42

(iv) https://www.linkedin.com/company/timesproconsulting-llp/;

¶43

(v) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcuTV19_7TREni 9LKp-g3WsQ,

¶44

in any manner or any other trade mark/trade name/domain name which is identical or similar to the plaintiff’s trademarks TIMES, TIMESPRO, TIMES PROPERTY and TIMES formative marks in relation to any business/services/goods/domain name, email and social media platforms or in any manner whatsoever amounting to infringement of plaintiff’s registered trademarks;

¶45

(b) Defendants, its partners, assignees in business, licensees, franchisees and all persons claiming right through them are permanently injuncted from using ‘TIMESPRO CONSULTING’ as trade mark/ trade name/ domain name, email and on social media platforms, including but not limited

¶46

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶47

to:

¶48

(i) https://www.facebook.com/TimesproConsultingLLP;

¶49

(ii) www.instagram.com/timesproconsulting_llp;

¶50

(iii) https://twitter.com/timesproconsult;

¶51

(iv) https://www.linkedin.com/company/timesproconsulting-llp;

¶52

(v) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcuTV9_7TREni9 LKp-g3WsQ

¶53

in any manner or any other trade mark/trade name/domain name which is identical/similar to the plaintiff’s trademarks TIMES, TIMESPRO, TIMES PROPERTY and TIMES formative marks in relation to any business/services/goods/domain name, email and social media platforms or in any manner whatsoever amounting to passing off of the defendant’s business/services as those of the plaintiff;

¶54

(c) Decree of mandatory injunction is also passed, directing the defendants to surrender in favour of the plaintiff, the domain name timesproconsulting.com and email address [email protected] and/or any other domain name/email containing the mark which is identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff’s TIMES, TIMESPRO, TIMES PROPERTY or TIMES formative marks; or in the alternative to deactivate the aforementioned domain name(s) and email address(es).

¶55

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

¶56

The suit is decreed in the above terms.

¶57

In view of the facts and circumstances as noted above, counsel for the plaintiff has also prayed for legal costs in their favour.

¶58

Accordingly, defendants are directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,50,000/-, to be deposited in favour of the plaintiff by the defendants within a period of six weeks.

¶59

This application stands disposed of accordingly along with the suit. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as infructuous.

¶60

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

¶61

ANISH DAYAL, J

¶62

FEBRUARY 5, 2024/RK/ rj

¶63

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶64

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 02/07/2025 at 15:36:49

Bennett Coleman and Company Limited v. Timespro Consulting LLP & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bennett Coleman and Company Limited v. Timespro Consulting LLP & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Triveni Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Thandi Ram Jai Narain & Anr.

Ttk Prestige Ltd. Vs Arjun Ram & Anr.

M/S Padmashree Inc. Vs M/S Uttam Associates

M/S Padmashree Inc. Vs M/S Uttam Enterprises

Anil Rathi & Ors. Vs Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited & Anr.

Danfoss a/S Vs Manik Engineers India

3M Innovative Properties Company & Anr. Vs M/S Venus Safety & Health Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Sterling Agro Industries Limited Vs M/S Asr Trading Company & Ors.

Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. 9TH Kilometer, Mex Estate, Pathankot Road, Jalandhar, Punjab Vs Commscope, Inc. of North Carolina, 1100, Commscope Place, S.E. Hickory, North Caroline, 28602, Usa

Ttk Prestige Ltd. Vs Arjun Ram & Anr.

Pfizer Inc. & Ors. Vs Triveni Interchem Private Limited & Ors.

Alphavax Inc. Vs Controller of Patents

Red Chillies Entertainments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ashok Kumar / John Doe & Ors.

Anil Rathi & Ors. Vs Balmukund Sponge and Iron Private Limited & Anr.