Disposed¶14

Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajluxmi Publications & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Mar 2025CS(COMM)/218/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajluxmi Publications & Ors.; Delhi High Court; CS(COMM) 218/2023; Mini Pushkarna, J.; 06.03.2025; trademark 'GUNJAN'; trademark infringement; permanent injunction; consent/suffer decree; costs and damages ₹ 30 lakhs; cease and desist letter; Local Commissioner report; Superdari release of seized books; Class 9 and Class 16 registrations; decree sheet; suit disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Permanent injunction decree in favour of the plaintiff in terms of Para 48 (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint; costs and damages of ₹ 30 Lacs payable by the defendants within six months; release of the books seized by the Local Commissioner (on Superdari) with liberty to sell after removal of all references to the mark 'GUNJAN'; suit and pending applications disposed of. ¶14

Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. Vs Rajluxmi Publications & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendants' use of the mark 'GUNJAN' for their books infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark 'GUNJAN' (registration application nos. 2309565 in Class 9 and 2309566 in Class 16). +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

Since the defendants agreed to suffer a decree and not to use the plaintiff's trademark 'GUNJAN', the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in terms of Para 48 (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

Considering the facts and circumstances, including the report of the Local Commissioner, ends of justice shall be met if the defendants pay costs and damages of ₹ 30 Lacs to the plaintiff, directed to be paid within six months.

¶9

Key takeaways

The books taken into custody by the Local Commissioner and released on Superdari are directed to be released to the defendants, who are at liberty to sell them only after changing the cover and removing pages containing any reference to the plaintiff's trademark 'GUNJAN'.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Mini Pushkarna, J.), order dated 06.03.2025 in CS(COMM) 218/2023 — Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajluxmi Publications & Ors.: Suit for permanent injunction restraining use of the registered trademark 'GUNJAN' (application nos. 2309565 in Class 9 and 2309566 in Class 16) decreed in terms of Para 48 (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint, the defendants having submitted that they were ready to suffer a decree and had already given up use of the mark. Despite a cease-and-desist letter, the defendants had not stopped infringing, and infringing books were found at their premises during execution of the local commission; considering the Local Commissioner's report, the Court directed the defendants to pay costs and damages of ₹ 30 Lacs to the plaintiff within six months. Books seized by the Local Commissioner and released on Superdari were directed to be released to the defendants with liberty to sell them after changing the cover and removing pages referring to 'GUNJAN'. Suit and pending applications disposed of; decree sheet to be drawn up.

¶1

$~28

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 218/2023 & I.A. 6930/2023, I.A. 2099/2024

¶4

VIKAS PUBLISHING HOUSE PVT. LTD. .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Mr. Swarnil Dey, Advocates (M:9880444377)

¶5

versus

¶6

RAJLUXMI PUBLICATIONS & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Himanshu Jain, Mr. Siddharth Jain, Mr. Rahul Gulia, Advocates along with AR (M:7988358702)

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

% 06.03.2025

¶11

The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff’s trademark ‘GUNJAN’, registered vide application nos. 2309565 in Class 9 and 2309566, in Class 16.

¶12

It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have been using the same mark as of the plaintiff’s, for their books.

¶13

Learned counsel for the defendants, upon instructions from Authorized Representative of the defendants, submits that the defendants are ready to suffer a decree and do not wish to use the plaintiff’s trademark ‘GUNJAN’. He submits that the defendants have already given up the use of the trademark ‘GUNJAN’.

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is entitled to costs and damages. He submits that the plaintiff had to

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 11/03/2025 at 12:03:39

¶17

approach this Court on account of the infringing activity, as despite cease and desist letter given on behalf of the plaintiff, the defendants did not stop their infringing activities.

¶18

He further submits that during the course of the execution of the local commission, infringing books with the mark of the plaintiff, were discovered from the premises of the defendants.

¶19

This Court has perused the report of the Local Commissioner, as well as has perused other record.

¶20

Considering the submissions made before this Court, wherein, the defendants have agreed to suffer a decree, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in terms of Para 48 (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and considering the report of the Local Commissioner, this Court is of the view that ends of justice shall be met, if costs and damages of ₹ 30 Lacs, is paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.

¶22

Accordingly, it is directed that the defendants shall pay costs and damages to the tune of ₹ 30 Lacs to the plaintiff , within a period of six months from today.

¶23

Let decree sheet be drawn up, in the aforesaid terms.

¶24

At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that books that were seized by the Local Commissioner may be allowed to be used by the defendants. He submits that the defendants propose to tear the front cover and other pages, which contain the infringing mark of the plaintiff ‘GUNJAN’.

¶25

Accordingly, the books that have been taken into custody by the Local

¶26

This is a digitally signed order.

¶27

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 11/03/2025 at 12:03:39

¶28

Commissioner and released on Superdari to the defendants, are directed to be released to the defendants. The defendants are at liberty to sell the books in question.

¶29

However, before selling the said books, the defendants shall change the cover of the said books, as well as remove other pages from the books which contain any reference to the plaintiff’s trademark ‘GUNJAN’.

¶30

Accordingly, the present suit, along with pending applications, stands disposed of.

¶31

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶32

MARCH 6, 2025 au

¶33

This is a digitally signed order.

¶34

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 11/03/2025 at 12:03:39

Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajluxmi Publications & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajluxmi Publications & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Orient Electric Ltd. Vs M/S. Breezalit Electricals & Ors.

Minions Ventures Private Limited & Ors. Vs Future Enterprise Limited

Khadi and Village Industries Commission Vs Mr Ashish Singh and Ors.

Alkem Laboratories Ltd. Vs Dr Best Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Anil Kumar Sole Proprietor of M/S Anil Kumar Ramesh Kumar Vs Jyoti Sales House & Anr.

Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Vs Pradeep Kumar Singh and Others

Delton Cables Ltd. Vs Delton Trading Pvt. Ltd.

Tata Sons Private Limited & Anr. Vs Malla Rajiv

Hindustan Syringes and Medical Devices Ltd. Vs Unomedical a/S & Anr.

Hindustan Syringes and Medical Device and Ltd.. Vs Unomedical a/S and Anr.

Orient Electric Ltd. Vs M/S. Breezalit Electricals & Ors.

Under Armour Inc. Vs Ashwani & Anr.

M/S J.K. Oil Industries Trading Wing Industrial Area Gangyal Jammu Vs M/S Mukund Lal Roshan Lal & Ors.

Vst Industries Limited Vs Mini Life Sciences Private Limited and Anr.