Full Text
CS(COMM)255/2018
SAMSUNGELECTRONICSCOLTD&ANR Plaintiff
Through: Mr.Shobhit Agarwal,Advocate with Mr. Ayush Sahay, Advocate.
Through Defendants Mr.Nishant Sharma,Proxy counsel for defendant no.34 and defendants no.8 and 21 are exparte
Date ofDecision:28'^ February,2019
JUDGMENT
1. Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction, infringement of trademarks and copyrights, passing off, unfair competition,dilution,rendition ofaccounts,delivery up and recovery ofdamages etc.
2. In the plaint,it is stated thatthe plaintiffs are a part ofSamsung Group of companies which is a South Korean multinational CS(COMM)255/2018 Page I of[5] 2019:DHC:7765 conglomerate company established in Seoul,Korea under the house mark and trademark SAMSUNG.It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiffno.l since its inception has grown to be one ofthe world's most reputed multinational conglomerates globally and has consistently maintained the number one position in the smart phone market since 2012.
3. Itisaverred in the plaintthatthe plaintiffno.l isthe registered proprietor of the trademarks SAMSUNG, SAMSUNG device/,SAMSUNG GALAXY S AND SAMSUNG GALAXY TAB.It is also averred that the plaintiff no.2 is the licensee ofthe SAMSUNG trademarks in India.
4. Itis stated in the plaintthatitcame tothe plaintiffs'knowledge that the defendants were unauthorisedly using the plaintiffs SAMSUNG trademarks for and in relation to mobile phones, accessories and such allied goods.
5. Itis stated in the plaintthatthe actsofthe defendants amountto infringementofthe plaintiffs'SAMSUNGtrademarks,copyrightsand passing off.It is stated thatthe plaintiffs are entitled to exclusive use of its SAMSUNG trademarks and any unauthorized use thereof amounts to a violation of the plaintiffs' statutory and common law rights.
6. Vide order dated 14"" September,2015,this court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour ofthe plaintiffs and appointed Local Commissioners to visitthe premises ofthe defendants on zonewise basis. Accordingly,raids were conducted on the premises ofthe CS(COMM)255/2018 ^ -11 defendants on W"October,2015 and large quantities ofinfrmgmg goods wererecovered frontthe said prentises.The interin,injunctton dated 14'" September, 2015 was confirmed vide order dated 25 October,2017.
7. Itis pertinentto mention thatdefendantno.8 hasneverentered appearance and no written statement has been filed by the said defendant.
8. The defendant no.21 had entered appearance and had also filed its written statement. However, the said defendant did not enter appearance on IQ''^ December, 2017, 06'*^ March, 2018, 23^'' May, 2018, 19''^ September, 2018 and 15'^ November, 2018. Vide order dated 14''^ February, 2019, defendant nos.[8] and 21, were proceeded exparte.
9. In view ofthe undertakings given by defendant nos.l to 7,9to 11, 12 to 20,22 to 28 and 29 to 33, the present suit was decreed againstthe said defendants in accordance with prayers A(i),(n),(m) and(iv)ofthe plaint.
10. Today,learned counselfor defendantno.34statesthathehasno objectionifthe presentsuitisdecreed inaccordance with prayersA(i), (ii),(iii)and(iv)ofthe plaint.Hefurtherstatesthatthe goodshanded over to them on Superdari shall be handed over to an authorised representative ofthe plaintiffsfor destruction purpose.
11. The statements/undertakings given by learned counsel for defendant no.34 are accepted by this Court and the said defendant is held bound by the same.
12. Atthis stage,learned counselforthe plaintiffs gives up prayers B,C,D and E ofthe prayer to the suit in respect ofthe remaining defendant nos.[8] and 21. The statement made by learned counsel for plaintiffsisacceptedbythisCourtandplaintiffsareheldboundbythe same.
13. ThisCourtisofthe viewthatthe presentsuitcan be disposedof against defendant nos.[8] and 21 without any further delay as the said defendants are not contesting the suit anymore. A Coordinate Bench ofthis CourtinSatyaInfrastructureLtd.and Ors. Vs.SatyaInfra& EstatesPvt.Ltd.,2013SCCOnLineDel508hasheld asunder.- "/am ofthe opinion that nopurpose will he served in such cases by directing theplaintiffs to leadexparte evidence in theform ofaffidavit by way ofexamination-in-chiefand which invariably is a repetition ofthe contents oftheplaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. Ifail tofathom any reasonfor according any additionalsanctity to the affidavit by wayofexamination-inchiefthan to the affidavit in support ofthe plaint or to any exhibit marks being put on the documents which have been filed by the plaintiffs and are already on record. I have therefore heard the counselfor the plaintiffs on merits qua the reliefofinjunction."
14. Inthe opinion ofthis Court,defendantno.8 has no real prospect ofdefending the plaintiffs claim,as it has neither entered appearance norfiled its written statement.Further,the defendant no.21 also hasno prospect ofdefending the claim,as though it entered appearance and filed its written statement,it has not conducted admission denial and has now stopped appearing. CS(COMM)255/2018
15. In fact, in paragraph 6 ofthe written statement the defendant no.21 had agreed to suffer a decree ofpermanentinjunction in terms ofPrayer Aoftheplaint.Moreover,theLocalCommissionconducted on the premisesofdefendantno.21 had also found several infringing products.
16. Further, the plaintiffs are the registered owners of the trade marks in question.
17. In view ofthe above,the presentsuitis decreed infavour ofthe plaintiffs and against the defendant nos.8, 21 and 34 in accordance with prayers A(i),(ii),(iii)and(iv)ofthe present plaint along with actualcosts.Registry isdirectedto prepareadecreesheetaccordingly.
18. With the aforesaid observations, present suit and pending application stand disposed of. MANlVf^AN,J FEBRUARY 28,2019 rs