Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CS(COMM) 391/2017 & I.A. 6724/2017
GOLD PEAK INDUSTRIES (HOLDINGS) LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Shrawan Chopra, Advocate with Mr. Pundreek Dwivedi, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Puneet Kaushik, Advocate for defendant No.1.
Date of Decision: 24th November, 2017
JUDGMENT
1. At the outset, learned counsel for defendant No.1 states that his client has never dealt with GP Batteries at any given point of time. He also states that defendant No.1 does not intend to deal with GP Batteries even in future.
2. The statement made by learned counsel for defendant No.1 is accepted by this Court and defendant No.1 is held bound by the same.
3. In view of the aforesaid statement, learned counsel for plaintiff does not wish to proceed any further against defendant No.1. Consequently, defendant No.1 is deleted from the array of parties. 2017:DHC:7225
4. The right of the defendant No. 2 to file the written statement was closed on 4th September, 2017. Since today also, none appears on behalf of defendant No.2, it is proceeded ex parte.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in view of the judgment of this Court in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., 2013 SCC OnLine Del 508, the present suit should be decreed qua the relief of injunction against defendant No. 2. The relevant portion of the said judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiffs is reproduced hereinbelow:- “I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served in such cases by directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence in the form of affidavit by way of examination-in-chief and which invariably is a repetition of the contents of the plaint. The plaint otherwise, as per the amended CPC, besides being verified, is also supported by affidavits of the plaintiffs. I fail to fathom any reason for according any additional sanctity to the affidavit by way of examination-in-chief than to the affidavit in support of the 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 counsel for the plaintiffs on merits qua the relief of injunction.”
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff further states that he has instructions not to press for any relief other than the relief of permanent injunction and costs, as prayed for in paragraph 50(i), (ii), (iii) and (vii) of the plaint.
7. The relevant facts of the present case as pointed out by learned counsel for the plaintiff are as under:-
Gold Peak Group and is listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong since 1984. The Gold Peak Group consists of the plaintiff along with GP Industries Limited, GP Batteries International Limited and other companies and is engaged in the business of Electronic and Acoustics, Automotive Wire Harness and other Industrial Investments.
Limited is one of the world’s major suppliers of primary and rechargeable batteries supplying an extensive range of battery products to original equipment manufacturers, leading battery companies as well as consumer retail markets under the trade mark GP. C. The trade mark GP has been coined by the plaintiff as an acronym to represent its company under the Gold Peak Group and GP Batteries International Limited and has been exclusively authorised by the plaintiff to use the said mark. The trade mark GP is used specifically for the plaintiff’s business activities and the goods sold under the said mark are extremely popular.
Limited has entered into an agreement with Godrej and Boyce and Mfg. Co. Ltd. by which Godrej and Boyce and Mfg. Co. Ltd. has been exclusively authorised to import the plaintiff’s products in India under the mark GODREJ GP and no other entity apart from Godrej is entitled to import any of the GP products into India.
I. The plaintiff thereafter served a legal notice upon the defendant
No.2 are being sold in a packaging containing the unique colour combination that has come to be associated with the plaintiff on account of extensive use by the plaintiff of the same in the past. Further, since the packaging in which the defendant No.2 is selling its products is currently not being used by the plaintiff, the presence of these batteries itself in the market indicates that the same are counterfeit and not genuine. A comparison of the original GP Batteries of the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
5. In view of the averments made in the plaint, which remain uncontroverted by the defendant No.2, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled to the judgment in terms of the relief claimed for in paragraph 50(i), (ii), (iii) and (vii) of the plaint.
6. In view of the above, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant No.2 in terms of paragraph 50(i), (ii), (iii) and (vii) of the plaint along with the actual costs. The costs shall amongst others include the lawyers’ fees as well as the amounts spent on purchasing the court-fees, Local Commissioner’s fees and other expenses etc. The plaintiff is given liberty to file on record the exact cost incurred by it in adjudication of the present suit, if not already filed. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.
7. Consequently, the present suit and applications stand disposed of. MANMOHAN, J NOVEMBER 24, 2017 js