Verizon Trademark Services LLC & Ors vs Vijay Patel & Ors

Year,"Revenues

(m Billions US$)

2001,67.2

2002,67.3

2003,67.8

2004,71.3

2005,75.0

2006,88.2

2007,93.5

2008,97.4

2009,107.8

2010,106.6

2011,110.9

2012,115.8

The Plaintiffs' products and services are said to be available in over 150 countries around the world, including in India. It is submitted that the",

Plaintiffs commenced their activities in India in the year 200l through Plaintiff No. 3. The commencement of the Plaintiffs' operation in India was said,

to have been extensively covered in the print and visual media and several National dailies, in their print and internet editions, carried articles",

announcing the entry of the Plaintiffs in India.,

It is claimed that in India, the plaintiffs are the proprietors of the various trademark registrations as detailed in para 19 of the plaint. It is also stated",

that the plaintiffs are the proprietors of the several domain names as stated in para 21 of the plaint.,

It is stated that defendants are said to have engaged in importing and selling mobile phones handsets and using the logo which is deceptively similar,

to the plaintiffs’ logo as stated in para 23 of the plaint. The plaintiffs are said to have become aware of the impugned activities of the defendants,

in January, 2014. It is urged that the defendants are carrying out the activities with mala fide intention and erroneously adopted a nearly identical and",

deceptively similar trademark as that of the plaintiffs. Similarly, it is also sought to register the impugned trademark  logo under class 09. It is",

also the case of the plaintiffs that they have been using their trademark logo  continuously and extensively since 2000 and have common law,

rights therein by virtue of their long, continuous and extensive use of the said trademarks. Hence, the present suit was filed.",

The matter was compromised between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3. On 25.04.2016, this court allowed I.A. No.4109/2016 and passed a",

decree in terms of the compromise application against defendants No.1 to 3. The said suit survives against defendant Nos.4 and 5. The plaintiffs were,

allowed to lead ex-parte evidence for the same. The plaintiffs have led the evidence of PW1 Sh.Pankaj Ahuja. In his evidence by way of affidavit,",

Sh.Pankaj Ahuja has placed on record 23 documents which have been marked as Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/23.,

Keeping in view the above un-rebutted evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs it is clear that the plaintiff has statutory other legal right on the,

trade mark  and . The defendant 4 & 5 by their acts are infringing the rights of the plaintiff. The plaintiff have also proved loss and,

damages suffered by them.,

Hence a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.4 and 5 restraining the said defendant Nos.4 and 5 in terms of the prayer,

para 35(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). The plaintiffs are also entitled to damages of Rs.5 lacs and cost of the suit.",

The suit is disposed of as above. All the pending IAs., if any, are also disposed of.",