Full Text
CS(OS)1268/2011 &IA No.5591/2016(u/O VII R-i4(3)CPC)
MALHOTRA BOOK DEPOT i&ORS Plaintiffs
Through: Mr.Dhruv Gautam,Adv.
Through: None.
14.09.2016
ORDER
1. The case is taken up today as 13^*^ September, 2016 was declared a holiday.
2. The five plaintiffs viz. Malhotra Book Depot, M/s Bright Enterprise Pvt. Ltd., MBD Alchemie Pvt. Ltd., M/s AKM Enterprises & MBD Printographics Pvt. Ltd. have instituted this suit to restrain the defendant from using the trademark"MBD" or any other trademark / trade name as may be identical to or deceptively similar to the registered trademark "MBD"ofthe plaintiffs and for ancillary reliefs.
3. The suit wasentertained though no expartereliefgranted infavour of the plaintiffs.
4. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement and on thepleadingsoftheparties.Issueswereframedon 14^August,2012andthe suitputto trial.
5. Vide order dated 24^^ July,2013 onthe application ofthe plaintiffsfor interim relief,the defendants wasrestrainedfrom selling,offeringforsale. CS(OS)1268/2011 Page1of[3] 2016:DHC:9353 advertising or dealing in any manner whatsoever in any identical or similar goods/services under the infringing mark/trade name containing the mark "MBD" or any other trademark / trading name as may be identical to or deceptively similar with or containing the trademark"MBD"or any ofthe composite marks ofthe plaintiffs containing the mark"MBD"amounting to infringementofplaintiffs'trademark.
6. The counsel for the plaintiffs, on enquiry, states that no appeal was preferred againstthe aforesaid order and the same continues in force.
7. Thereafter the defendant stopped appearing and was on 2"'' November,2015 proceeded againstexparte.
8. The plaintiffs in their ex-parte evidence have examined their official Mr.Rohit Mehta and whose evidence remains unrebutted.
9. The plaintiffs have filed lA No.5591/2016 to put on record the original registration certificate ofthe trademark"MBD"in Class 36.
10. The said application is allowed and the registration certificate is taken on record.
11. The plaintiffs, on the basis ofex parte evidence led, have made out a case for grantofpermanentinjunction as claimed.
12. On perusal ofthe evidence ofthe plaintiffs however no case for grant 0 of any relief of recovery of damages is made out particularly when the defendant has not contested the suit since the interim order and it is,not the case ofthe plaintiffs that the defendant is in violation ofthe interim order. The plaintiffshall however be entitled to costs ofthe suit. CS(OS)1268/2011 Page 2of[3]
13. Accordingly,a decree for permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in terms of sub-para (i) of prayer paragraph 35 ofthe plaint. The plaintiffs shall also be entitled to costs ofthe suit.
14. Counsel fee assessed at Rs.50,000/-. Decree sheet be prepared.
SEPTEMBER 14,2016 'gsr' RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW,J