SANDISK CORPORATION vs J K ELECTRONICS & ORS

Product,Quantity of,Price (per,Total Cost of,

,Products,unit),seized,

,,,products,

SanDisk Cruzer Blade

USB Flash Drive",4,Rs.400,Rs.1600,

MicroSD cards bearing,15,Rs.650,Rs.9750,

the SanDisk,,,,

Trademarks,,,,

Products,Quantity,Price (per,Total cost of,

,,unit),products,

,,,seized,

SanDisk micro SD,12,Rs.650,Rs.7800,

card â€" 32 GB,,,,

SanDisk micro SD

card â€" 4 GB",3,Rs.475,Rs.1425,

SanDisk Ultra

Memory Card â€" 64 GB",2,Rs.2000,Rs.4000,

SanDisk Ultra,2,Rs.1300,Rs.2600,

Memory Card â€" 32 GB,,,,

,,,,

SanDisk Ultra

Memory Card â€" 16 GB",10,Rs.800,Rs.8000,

Pen Drives â€" 32 GB,15,Rs.700,Rs.10500,

USB Pen Drive â€" 32GB

USB Pen Drive â€" 16

GB","4

28","Rs.700

Rs.450","Rs.2800

Rs.12600",

SDHC Memory Card â€",7,Rs.415,Rs.2905,

4 GB,,,,

,,,,

SDHC Memory Card â€"8 GB,3,Rs.500,Rs.1500,

SDHC Memory Card â€"16 GB,2,Rs.630,Rs.1260,

Total â€" 88 Products,,,"Rs.55,390",

Products,,Quantity,"Price (per

unit)","Total cost of

products

seized

Memory Cards,,,,

4,GB,10,Rs.415,Rs.4150

8,GB,313,Rs500,"Rs.1,56,500

16,GB,9,Rs.630,"Rs.5,670

16 GB (Ultra),,10,Rs.800,"Rs.8,000

32,GB,5,Rs.650,Rs.3250

Pen Drive,,,,

32,GB,21,Rs.700,"Rs.14,700

16,GB,4,Rs.450,"Rs.1,800

4,GB,5,Rs.210,"Rs.1,050

SD Card,,,,

16,GB,3,Rs.415,"Rs.1,245

32,GB,4,Rs.650,Rs.2600

USB Drives,,,,

16,GB,22,Rs.450,"Rs.9,900

32 GB (Flash Drive

Ultra)",,1,Rs.1300,"Rs.1,300

,,,,

Packing Covers,,200,--,

Total â€" 407 products

packaging",,,,"Rs.2,10,165

plaintiff made an expenditure of US$513 million on advertising and research and development.,,,,

iv. The plaintiff possesses both common law trade mark rights as well as trade mark registrations for the mark SANDISK in more than 150 countries,,,,

worldwide. The said trademark has been in extensive, continuous and uninterrupted use globally since 1995 and in India since 2005 and in addition to",,,,

the worldwide trademark registrations, the plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of both a variety of word marks and device marks in India including",,,,

the SanDisk logo. The plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the “Red Frame Logoâ€​.,,,,

v. The plaintiff sells its memory cards in a unique red and white packaging with the “Red Frame Logo†which qualifies as an original artistic work,,,,

within the meaning of Section 2 (c) of the Copyright Act, 1957.",,,,

vi. In last week of October, 2015, the plaintiff came to know that large quantities of counterfeit SanDisk memory cards were being sold in the market.",,,,

The Local Commissioners seized infringing goods from the premises of the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 as mentioned hereinabove.",,,,

vii. The defendant nos. 2 and 3 belatedly filed their written statement along with an application for condonation of delay. The same was directed to be,,,,

taken on record subject to the payment of total costs of Rs10,000 of which 50% was payable to the plaintiff and 50% to the Army Welfare Fund",,,,

Battle Casualties. However the defendants failed to furnish any proof of payment of costs to Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties. Consequently, in",,,,

the eyes of law there is no written statement on record.,,,,

viii. Learned counsel for the plaintiff prays that the suit be decreed in accordance with Para 23 (a), (b) and (f) as well as damages of Rs11,350 from",,,,

the defendant no. 1, Rs 55,390 from the defendant no.2 and Rs2,10,165 from the defendant no.3.",,,,

A perusal of the written statement reveals that the defendant no.3 has taken a defence that he is not the proprietor of M/s Saikripa Telecom and,,,,

that no infringing goods were found at the premises.,,,,

However, the claims are contrary to the report filed by Local Commissioner dated 20th January, 2016, wherein the Learned Local Commissioner has",,,,

stated that the defendant no.3 introduced himself as the proprietor of M/s Saikripa Telecom, and directed his employee to sign the attendance sheet",,,,

and furnish his ID. Also, the said defence of defendant no. 3 has already been rejected by the learned Joint Registrar vide order dated 16th",,,,

November, 2016 while allowing plaintiff’s impleadment application. The said order has attained finality.",,,,

In the opinion of this Court, the defendants have no real prospect of defending the claim. Further, the plaintiff is the registered user of the trademark",,,,

and logo in question. This Court is also of the view that the defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiff the value of the goods seized by the Local,,,,

Commissioners and the legal costs incurred by the plaintiff.,,,,

Consequently, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendants in terms of para 23(a), (b) and (f) of the plaint along with",,,,

compensation of Rs. 11,350/- to be paid by the defendant no.1, Rs 55,390 by the defendant no.2 and Rs 2,10,165 by the defendant no.3 for the value",,,,

of goods seized at the premises of the defendants. 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. The defendants shall hand over the goods seized by the Local Commissioners to an authorised representative of plaintiff for destruction within,,,,

three weeks.,,,,

Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.,,,,

Accordingly, the present suit stands disposed of.",,,,