Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(COMM) 466/2023, I.A. 12580/2023, I.A. 12581/2023, I.A.
12582/2023 & I.A. 12583/2023 VINIT DUA ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Adv.
Through: Mr. S. Nandakumar, Ms. Deepika Nandakumar and Mr. Anand Murthi Rao, Advs.
JUDGMENT
02.08.2023
1. This suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant, alleging infringement, by the defendant, of the plaintiff’s registered trademark AFFINITY, which stands registered in favour of the plaintiff through its predecessor-in-interest on 15 March 2004. The mark was assigned by the plaintiff’s predecessors to the plaintiff vide assignment dated 1 August 2018. The mark AFFINITY is used by the plaintiff for providing services of hairstyling and hair dressing in various salons maintained by the plaintiff, under the names AFFINITY ELITE and AFFINITY URBAN.
2. The plaint also contains assertions regarding the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. However, as the defendant has agreed not to use the infringing mark, it is not necessary to enter into these aspects.
3. The plaint alleges that the defendant is using the mark/name “AFFINITY LOUNGE”, for providing hair and beauty salon services which are similar to the services provided by the plaintiff under its registered trademarks. Accordingly, the plaintiff instituted the present suit, seeking an injunction against the defendant using the mark AFFINITY LOUNGE or any other mark containing the word AFFINITY and bearing deceptive or confusing similarity to the mark of the plaintiff, for hairstyling and beauty services or any other allied or cognate services. The prayers clause in the plaint read thus: “(i) for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its proprietor, or partners (as the case may be), its servants, shopkeepers, agents, dealers, stockists, retailers, distributors, representatives, legal heirs, assignees, franchisees, family members or any other person acting on its behalf from providing hair and beauty salon services, advertising or displaying directly or indirectly dealing in hair and beauty salon services and allied services bearing identical trade mark AFFINITY, either as trade mark or part of trade name, domain name, if any, or email ID, or any other identical/deceptively similar trade mark and from doing any other things and acts as are likely to infringe the plaintiffs prior adopted, prior used, well-known and registered trade mark AFFINITY.
(ii) for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its proprietor, or partners (as the case may be), its servants, shopkeepers, agents, dealers, stockists, retailers, distributors, representatives, legal heirs, assignees, franchisees, family members or any other person acting on its behalf-from providing hair and beauty salon services, advertising or displaying directly or indirectly dealing in hair and beauty salon services and allied services bearing identical trade mark AFFINITY, either as trade mark or part of trade name, domain name, if any or Email ID, or any other identical/deceptively similar trade mark, and from doing any other things and acts as are likely to pass-off the services of the defendant as those of the services of the plaintiff under trade mark AFFINITY.”
4. The defendant has, even before the issuance of summons in the suit, placed on record an affidavit dated 20 July 2023, paras 9 and 10 of which read thus:
5. In view of the aforesaid undertaking contained in paras 9 and 10 of the affidavit dated 20 July 2023, the grievance in the suit does not survive for adjudication.
6. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, learned Counsel for the plaintiff seeks that the suit may be decreed in terms of prayers (i) and (ii) reproduced hereinabove.
7. He undertakes on behalf of his client not to press the remaining prayers in the suit.
8. In view thereof, the suit stands decreed in terms of prayers (i) and (ii) in para 29 of the plaint which stand reproduced hereinabove.
9. Let a decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J AUGUST 2, 2023