M/S. Aero Club vs Sahibjeet & Anr

Manmohan, J

Since the Joint Registrar has rendered a finding that the defendants have been served (as they have refused service) the defendants are proceeded

ex parte.

At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff gives up prayers (iv), (v) and (vi) of the prayers to the suit. The statement made by learned counsel

for plaintiff is accepted by this Court and plaintiff is held bound by the same.

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 508, the present suit be decreed qua the relief of injunction. The relevant portion of the said judgment relied upon by learned counsel for

the plaintiff 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.â€​

The relevant facts of the present case are that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and exporting footwear, apparel and

lifestyle products like belts, wallets, shoes, shirts, T-shirts etc. under the trademarks WOODLAND, WDL, TREE DEVICE Â and the

Woodland Label  . The plaintiff has been extensively and continuously using the trade mark WOODLAND for almost 25 years.

It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark WOODLAND and the Leaf device  used on the heel of the

shoe in Class 25. The plaintiff has also filed applications for registration of the TREE DEVICE  and the Woodland Label  in

Class 18 which are currently pending before the Trade Marks Registry. It is stated that the TREE DEVICE Â and the Woodland Label

 are original artistic works within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in September, 2017, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that a large number of counterfeit products

bearing the plaintiff’s mark WOODLAND, TREE DEVICE  and the Woodland Label  are being sold in the markets of

Delhi. Subsequently, the plaintiff commissioned an investigation and the investigator narrowed down the supply of shoes to the shop of defendant No.

1 who is the proprietor of defendant No. 2. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the investigator thereafter visited the shop of the defendant

No. 1 and purchased samples of shoes bearing the WOODLAND marks which were cheap counterfeits of the plaintiff’s products and of sub-

standard quality. He further states that no invoice was provided to the investigator for the said purchase. A comparison chart of the products of the

plaintiff and the defendants is reproduced hereinbelow:

He also contends that adoption and use of plaintiff’s mark WOODLAND, TREE DEVICE  and the Woodland Label

 by the defendants constitutes infringement and passing off and is likely to deceive the customers into believing that the products they are purchasing

are authentic products of the plaintiff.

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

no real prospect of defending the claim.

Though the Local Commissioners appointed by this Court did not seize any infringing good, yet in the opinion of this Court, the defendants 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 plaintiff.

In view of the above, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in terms of prayer clause (i), (ii) and (iii) of

the plaint along with the actual costs. 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 application stand disposed of.