Mahindra and Mahindra Limited vs Ashwani Kumar

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.—This is a suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright and trademark, passing off, delivery up and rendition of accounts etc., filed by the plaintiff (Mahindra and Mahindra) against the defendant (Ashwani Kumar) who is trading under the name and style of Ajanta Motors. The case of the plaintiff is that the trademark ''Mahindra'' including the ''Mahindra and Mahindra Coloured Wheel logo'' is owned by the plaintiff. These trade marks and logo are utilised by the plaintiff for the purposes of its products which are, inter alia, motor vehicles and their spare parts. The defendant had initially appeared in this suit and even filed a written statement but, thereafter, had dropped out of the proceedings. By an order dated 01.12.2005 the defendant was directed to be proceeded with ex parte and the plaintiff was directed to lead its ex parte evidence in the form of an affidavit as well as to file its documents. The affidavit by way of evidence has been filed and the documents have also been filed and have been marked as exhibits PW1/1 to PW1/9. The statements contained in the affidavit by way of evidence filed on behalf of the plaintiff have gone unrebutted and, Therefore, there is no contradiction of the plaintiff''s case. The plaintiff has been able to show particularly by virtue of its exhibits PW1/6 and PW1/7 that the packaging employed by the plaintiff as shown in Exhibit PW1/6 has been copied by the defendant as indicated by various documents collectively marked as Exhibit PW1/7. These include the adhesive tapes, the price labels and the plastic labels. I have compared the two exhibits i.e., Exhibit PW1/6 and Exhibit PW1/7 and find that the defendant has clearly copied the marks and the designs and the artistic work of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for in the present suit. Accordingly, the suit can be straightaway decreed in terms of paragraph 35 (a), (b), (c) and (e). Insofar as the prayer contained in paragraph 35(d) is concerned since the plaintiff has been proceeded with ex parte, the same cannot be granted. However, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff points out that in paragraph 31, the plaintiff had also indicated that it has suffered great loss which is well over Rs. 20 lakhs. However, no evidence has been led on this behalf as to indicate the extent of the loss or the extent of actual damages caused to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been handicapped by the absence of the defendant. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff prays that some punitive damages be granted in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. For this purpose, I find that it would be sufficient if damages to the extent of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The suit stands disposed of. The decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.