Ahuja Radios v. M/S Om Sound and Decoration & Anr.

1. This suit is filed seeking permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their principal officers, partners, agents, distributors etc. from dealing in public address systems and sound equipment under the trade mark AHUJA with or without the AHUJA DEVICE or any other trade mark and/or device deceptively similar and seeking an order for delivery-up of all the impugned materials of the defendants including the infringing products, signage, goods stickers, cartons etc. bearing the impugned trade marks, 2018:DHC:3312 CS(COMM.)832/2017 Page 2 device or model numbers.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that it was established in 1940 and is engaged in developing, manufacturing, marketing and exporting a variety of Public Address Systems and Audio Equipment under the trade mark AHUJA. It has been pleaded that apart from forming an essential and dominant part of the plaintiff’s trading style, the trademark AHUJA is also the plaintiff’s house mark and all products manufactured, marketed and exported by the plaintiff since 1940 have been sold under the trademark AHUJA alongwith the AHUJA DEVICE. The said products are sold under the said registered marks.

3. This court had passed an interim injunction on 7.12.2017 restraining the defendants etc. from dealing in public address systems and sound equipment under the trademark AHUJA with or without the AHUJA DEVICE or any other trade mark and/or device deceptively similar thereto.

4. On 25.4.2018 the submission of learned counsel for the defendant was noted that the defendant does not intend to use the trademark AHUJA with or without AHUJA DEVICE and the suit can be disposed of in terms of the interim orders passed by this court.

5. Defendant No.1/Mr.Sunil Chouksey is present in person in Court. He undertakes to the court that he shall not sell or deal in any public address system and sound equipment under the trade mark AHUJA with or without the AHUJA DEVICE. His undertaking is taken on record and he shall abide by the same. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant No.1 in terms of prayer 35(a) and (b) of the plaint.

6. Keeping in view the fact that the Local Commissioner who had visited the premises of defendant No.1 had found some equipments with the CS(COMM.)832/2017 Page 3 impugned trademark in the premises of defendant No.1, it would be appropriate to award some nominal damages in favour of the plaintiff. However, learned counsel appearing for defendant No.1 pleads that the defendant No.1 is a very small time trader. I accordingly award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as cost/damages payable to the plaintiff by the defendant No.1. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. In the interest of justice keeping in view the submissions of learned counsel for defendant No.1 regarding his financial condition the plaintiff will not execute the decree for Rs.1,00,000/for the next three months to enable defendant No.1 pay the said amount to the plaintiff. The defendant will also hand over the goods that were seized by the Local Commissioner and given to defendant No.1 on superdari to the representatives of the plaintiff within ten days from today.

7. The suit stands disposed of. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

JAYANT NATH, J MAY 18, 2018 n