LG CORP & ORS vs RAJESH GUPTA & ORS.

I.A.1892-93/2018

Present joint applications have been filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 CPC. The same are duly signed by learned counsel for

the plaintiffs and defendant nos. 4 and 5 as well as by the said parties.

Present applications are also supported by affidavits of authorized representative of the plaintiffs and the defendant nos. 4 and 5.

The learned counsel for the said parties state that the matter has been compromised in accordance with the terms mentioned in I.A.1892-

93/2018.

The learned counsel further assure and undertake to this Court that the said parties shall comply with the Settlement terms mentioned in

I.A.1892-93/2018. The aforesaid statements, assurances and undertakings as well as undertakings given by learned counsel for the parties are

accepted by this Court and the said parties are held bound by the same.

This Court has also perused the compromise application and Settlement Agreement and is of the opinion that they are lawful.

Consequently, the suit is decreed qua defendant nos. 4 and 5, in accordance with applications bearing nos. I.A.1892-93/2018, which are

marked as Ex. C-1(Colly). Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly. Accordingly, present applications stand disposed of.

CS(COMM) 112/2018 & I.As. 11692/2015, 11693/2015, 12526/2015, 13341/2015, 18141-18142/2015

Vide order dated 09th November, 2016, defendant nos.1 to 3 were proceeded ex parte.

At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiffs gives up prayers (d), (e) and (f) of the prayer clause to the suit. He further 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 50 8, the present suit

be decreed qua the relief of injunction. 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-inchief 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 examinationin- 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.

The relevant facts of the present case are that the plaintiff no. 1 is the registered proprietor of trademark LG for electronic business and goods

used by all plaintiffs'' group companies worldwide. The said mark is registered in favour of plaintiff no.1 in over 180 countries in the world in

various classes. The trademark LG was coined as the new Group/corporate name by the plaintiff No. 1 from the initials of its erstwhile corporate

names/group names, i.e. ""LUCKY"" & ""GOLDSTAR"".

It is stated in the plaint that for promoting its brand, plaintiffs have created a distinctive logo. The logo represents world, future, humanity and

creative thinking. The said LG logo is stated to be an original artistic work and plaintiff no.1 is the proprietor of its copyright. It is stated that the

plaintiff no. 3 is stated to have extensively advertised their goods bearing the trademark LG and LG logo in print and visual media in India.

It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs and/or its associate group of companies are stated to be engaged in the business of manufacturing

and marketing of various goods including television sets, home appliances, projectors and various other electronic digital appliances.

The subject matter of the present suit is the LG Bluetooth Stereo Headset HBS-730, allegedly a stylish Bluetooth headset having an ergonomic

curve design providing wireless control. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs state that the headset has become an instant hit and has become popular

amongst the masses and the said model is being sold by plaintiff no. 3 in India at an MRP of Rs. 5,499/-.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that in the third week of April, 2015, plaintiff no. 3 came to know that defendants nos. 1, 2 and 3 were

selling counterfeit LG Bluetooth Stereo Headset, not limited to HBS-730, through e-commerce websites defendants nos. 4 and 5 in the price

range between Rs.600/- and Rs. 1,700/-, whereas the original is sold for more than Rs. 5,000.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs'' states that consumers will not be able to distinguish between the originals and the counterfeits as the

distinction between them is extremely minute and that consumers are bound to be confused and deceived. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states

that the products being sold by the defendants are sub-standard products and are dangerous for consumers.

Order XIII-A of the Act, 2015 empowers this Court to pass a summary judgment, without recording evidence, if it appears that the defendant

has no real prospect of defending the claim.

In the opinion of this Court, the defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 have no real prospect of defending the claim as they have neither entered appearance

nor filed their written statement or denied the documents of the plaintiffs.

In view of the above, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant nos.1, 2 and 3 in terms of prayer clause (a), (b) and (c)

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. 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. Consequently, the present suit and applications stand disposed of.