Punitive Damages in Trademarks Infringement Suit Under Order XXXIX Rule 2a For Continuing Infringement Even After The Injunction Order In Favour Of The Plaintiff Under Order XXXIX Rule 1 &2.

DELHI HIGH COURT, INDIA

Neutral Citation Number : 2023:DHC:2435

CS(COMM) 673/2022& I.A. 5843/2023

JMD HERITAGE LAWNS PRIVATE LIMITED ….. Plaintiff

VS

CHAWLA PROPRIETOR SADDA

PIND RESTAURANT …………………………………….Defendant

The case involved the infringement of the Registered trademarks SADDA PIND of the Plaintiffs herein by use and adoption of the deceptively similar mark Sadda Pind by the Defendants by using the same for his Restaurant.

 The Plaintiffs have served the legal notice for ceasing and desisting, but the Defendants instead of ceasing and desisting, argued the rights of the Plaintiffs.

 The Plaintiffs then filed suit against the Defendants for the relief of Injunction against the Defendants. The Ld. Judge on perusal of the facts on 7th October 2022, ordered for the interim injunction under Order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 against the Defendants not to use the Said mark SADDA PIND or any other similar trademarks as that of the Plaintiffs.

 The Plaintiff then came to know that the Defendants have not even after the injunction ceased to use the trademarks similar trademarks as SADDA PIND and thus aggrieved by the same the present application under XXXIX 2A was filed by the Plaintiff.

 The Ld. Judge while ordering for the Permanent injunction against the Defendant, allowed the present application and ordered for the Punitive action, Para 19 of the judgement is reproduced herein :-

 “19. A defendant who behaves in such a fashion cannot be let off lightly. The

defendant is not merely guilty of initial infringement but of continuous and

obdurate insistence on persisting with its infringing activity despite several

opportunities to discontinue the same. In the process, the plaintiff has been

dragged into an unnecessary litigation and precious court time has been wasted.

There has also been contumacious disobedience of the injunction order dated 7th October 2022 which ought, of rights, to expose the defendant to punitive action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC.”

 The Court held that “The defendant is held liable to pay punitive costs of ₹ 2,00,000/-, payable by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft in favour of Shakuntala Poddar Welfare Foundation, Sainik Nagar, Mansa Ram Park, Uttam Nagar ND 110059, an NGO working for underprivileged slum children to be deposited with the Registrar of this Court.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *