Delhi District Court
Loreal India Private Limited vs Mr. Vikash Jain on 7 April, 2025
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIDYA PRAKASH
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02, PATIALA
HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR NO.: DLND01-002411-2019
CS (COMM.)/194/2021
IN THE MATTER OF:-
L'Oreal India Private Limited
A-Wing, 8th Floor, Marathon Futurex
N. M. Joshi, Lower Parel, Mumbai
Maharashtra
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. Sh. Vikas Jain
e-mail : [email protected]
Mobile: +91-8745089106
2. Google LLC
1600, Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View
California-74043, USA.
3. Vodafone Idea Limited
A-19, Mathura Road
Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate
New Delhi-110076
4. Punjab National Bank
Head Office, Plot No.4
Sector-10, Dwarka
New Delhi-110075
5. Canara Bank
112, JC Road, 3rd Floor
P. B. Halsurpete, Nagarathpete
Bengaluru, Karnataka -560001
6. Mr. Subodh Singh
Gram Bela, Post/Thana Govindpur
District Nawada, Bihar-805102
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 1 of 37
-2-
7. Mr. Asif
House No.106, Gali No.9
Shiv Enclave-01, Iasmailpur
Sector-91, Faridabad
Haryana - 121013
8. Mr. Vivek Kumar
Mahmoodpur Keerat, Distt. Kannauj
Uttar Pradesh-209721
9. Mr. Vicky Kumar
Pakri Asli, Post Monain
Sahebganj, Muzaffarnagar
Bihar - 843125
...DEFENDANTS
NOTES:
(i) The defendant nos.2 and 3 namely Google LLC and
Vodafone Idea Ltd. already stood deleted, vide order dated
18.09.2023, passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
(ii) Suit qua defendant nos. 4, 5 and 7 namely Punjab National
Bank, Canara Bank and Mr. Asif respectively, is dismissed
as withdrawn, vide order dated 07.04.2025, passed by this
Court.
Date of Institution : 05-06-2021
Date of reserving Judgment : 17-03-2025
Date of pronouncing Judgment : 07-04-2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present suit under
S. 134 & 135, and 27 & 29 of Trademarks Act, 1999 and
Sec. 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957 for permanent
injunction restraining infringement of trade mark and
copyright, passing off, delivery up and rendition of
accounts etc., filed by plaintiff against the defendants.
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 2 of 37
-3-
2. At the outset, it may be noted that initially, the suit was
filed against as many as five defendants, and amongst
them, the defendant no.1 was arrayed as ‘Ashok Kumar’
on the basis of ‘John Doe’ principle as applicable in India.
Subsequently, after ex parte ad interim injunction and
compliance reports filed by defendant nos.2, 3, and 5
namely, Google LLC, Vodafone Pvt. Ltd. and Canara
Bank respectively, the plaintiff had moved an application
under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC seeking substitution of
defendant no.1 Ashok Kumar (John Doe) with S/Sh.
Vikash Jain, Subodh Singh, Asif, Vivek Kumar and Vicky
Kumar, as defendant nos. 1 and 6 to 9 respectively, on the
basis of e-mails and compliance reports filed by defendant
nos.2, 3 and 5. The said application was allowed and
disposed off vide order dated 17-09-2021 and
consequently, S/Sh. Vikash Jain, Subodh Singh, Asif,
Vivek Kumar and Vicky Kumar were substituted /
impleaded as defendant nos. 1 and 6 to 9 respectively in
place of defendant no.1 Ashok Kumar (John Doe).
Accordingly,Amended Memo of Parties was filed by the
plaintiff, thereby incorporating their names therein.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
3. The case of the plaintiff, as set out in the plaint, in brief, is
as under:-
3.1 The plaintiff, which is stated to be a company under
the laws of India, got instituted the present suit
through constituted attorney, who has been dulyCS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 3 of 37
-4-
authorized by the plaintiff company to institute,
sign, verify and pursue the present suit.
3.2 It is stated that the plaintiff is engaged in the
business of manufacturing, distribution and sale of a
wide range of hair care, skin care, toiletries and
beauty products including make-up, preparations,
perfumery preparations, essential oils, cosmetics,
preparations for colouring and bleaching the hair,
hair dyes and tints, preparations for waving and
setting the hair, shampoos, hair sprays,
non-medicated preparations for the care and the
beauty of the hair, non-medicated preparations for
the care and beauty of the skin, toilet soaps,
dentifrices, sun-tan preparations, personal
deodorants and accessories and other allied/related
products [hereinafter referred to as “the said goods
and business”].
3.3 It is averred that ever since its bonafide adoption in
or about the first decade of 1900, the plaintiff has
been using the mark L’OREAL,, ,
, and various stylized
labels/ word per se over long and continuous period
of time as a trade mark, as also an essential part of
its trade name [hereinafter referred to as “the said
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 4 of 37
-5-
trademarks/ labels’] in relation to its said goods and
business. Further, it is stated that in addition to its
word per se user, the plaintiff over a period of time
has also been using its said trade marks in various
stylized and artistic formats and labels and which
have been created and are being created over a
period of time. It is claimed that the word/mark
L’OREAL remains a key and material part thereof.
3.4 It is also claimed that said trade mark(s) L’OREAL
is/are registered in India under the provisions of
Trade Marks Act, 1999 in favour of the plaintiff in
India and same are stated to be valid and subsisting
as on date and details thereof have been given in
Para no.6 of the plaint.
3.5 The plaintiff has been using the said
trademarks/labels ever since their honest and
bonafide adoption in relation to its said goods &
business, continuously, commercially, openly, & to
the exclusion of others, uninterruptedly and in the
course of trade and as proprietor thereof and has
built up a worldwide and globally valuable trade,
goodwill & reputation thereunder and has acquired
proprietary rights therein.
3.6 It is also stated that the said trade marks/ labels are
also duly registered in over a hundred countries and
across all continents and regions and thus, it is
claimed that the plaintiff’s said goods and business
under its said trademarks/labels as also the goodwill
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 5 of 37
-6-
and reputation achieved thereunder, are global in
character and extends into India as well.
3.7 Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff
has regularly and continuously been promoting its
said distinctive trade marks/labels for its products
thereunder through extensive advertisements,
publicity, promotions and marketing and has been
making research and the plaintiff has been spending
enormous amounts of money, efforts, skills and time
thereon. The plaintiff has been doing so through
various means and modes, including through the
visual, print and electronic media and all of which
have tremendous reach, visibility, distribution,
availability and circulation world over including in
India.
3.8 It is also stated that the plaintiff has been promoting
its products in India, including under the said
trademarks/labels through leading brand
ambassadors and personalities, which include
Ms. Ashwarya Rai, Ms. Sonam Kapoor and
Ms. Deepika Padukone.
3.9 Further, it is claimed that the plaintiff has
a huge turnover against sale of its products under the
said trademarks/labels, which runs into Billions of
Euros worldwide.
3.10 Hence, it is stated that on account of its good quality
and standards of manufacturing and untiring effortsCS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 6 of 37
-7-
in advertising and marketing, the products of the
plaintiff under the said trade marks/ labels have
become distinctive and have acquired secondary
significance with the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s said
goods and business thereunder. Further, the
purchasing public, the trade and industry at large
worldwide and in India identify, distinguish and
associate plaintiff’s said goods under the said
trademarks/labels with the plaintiff and from the
plaintiff’s source and origin alone and regard them
as high quality products exclusively as that of the
plaintiff. It is further claimed that the said
trademarks/labels are well known trademarks and
have acquired enviable reputation and goodwill
across the globe including India.
3.11 It is also case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff invests
heavily in R & D and its products are known for
their high standards of quality, safety, innovation
and reliability and there is an ever-increasing
demand thereof. The plaintiff every year devotes
about 3% of its turn over to R & D. The plaintiff has
invested more than 490 million Euros in R & D. The
plaintiff, besides other countries, has research
Laboratories in France, U.S.A. and JAPAN, which
alone employ over 2350 researchers from over 30
disciplines. The plaintiff collaborates with research
units in about 20 countries worldwide in advanced
scientific fields. The plaintiff’s research is mainly
focused on 3 subjects Skin, hair and colour and with
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 7 of 37
-8-
clear aim to improve the quality and effectiveness of
its products through scientific innovation and to
develop new products. The research findings are
published in numerous international scientific
journals. In the year 2005, the plaintiff filed
for 529 patents. About 94% of the plaintiff’s group
production plans are certified 9001 version 2000.
3.12 It is stated that the plaintiff’s said trademarks/ labels
as well as the goods and business thereunder have a
very strong presence in India. The plaintiff’s
reputation and goodwill in relation to its said goods
& business existed in India from the very beginning
and its products as well as information thereon were
available to Indians in India & Overseas. The
plaintiff’s said goods under the said
trademarks/labels are now freely and commercially
available in India since over three decades and as of
now, they are sold in over 300 major towns and
cities across India.
3.13 It is further stated that in India, the plaintiff is
present through its three divisions namely the
Consumer Product Division through which the said
trademarks and the goods & business thereunder
are being conducted. The other two divisions being
the Professional Product Division and the Active
Cosmetic Department and each of the divisions
is handling various aspects of the plaintiff’s
business.
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 8 of 37
-9-
3.14 Thus, it is stated that in view of the plaintiff’s
proprietary rights both under statutory and common
law in its said trademarks, its goodwill & reputation,
and its copyrights, the plaintiff has the exclusive
right to the use thereof and nobody can be permitted
to use the same or any other deceptively similar
trademark/label in any manner whatsoever in
relation to any specification of goods without the
leave and license of the plaintiff.
3.15 It is alleged that the defendant nos.1 and 6 to 9 had
been fraudulently inducing innocent people by
issuing emails and call letters for employment for
interview in the name of L’OREAL [ hereinafter
referred to as the ‘said impugned trade mark/ label’]
by issuing interview letters on imitated letter heads
of L’OREAL [hereinafter referred to as ‘the said
impugned interviews/ letters/activities and services’]3.16 It is alleged that in the last week of May, 2021, the
plaintiff came across the fake interview letters being
forwarded to the plaintiff by the duped/ potential
candidates. Being aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff
caused an inquiry, which revealed that the defendant
nos.1, and 6 to 9 had been issuing fake interview
letters and had been taking Rs.2960/- as a security
deposit to the account of the defendant no.1
maintained with Punjab National Bank and Canara
Bank, (defendant nos.4 and 5) respectively, the
exact particulars pertaining to account details of
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 9 of 37
-10-
defendant no.1 in the aforementioned banks were
being furnished by defendant no.1 only over the
phone or on WhatsApp by the mobile numbers as
mentioned in the Memo of Parties, when a call or
message is made by any selected candidate. The
particulars pertaining to the bank accounts being
used by defendant no.1 are reproduced here as
under:-
S.N Bank Account No. IFSF Code
o Name
1 PNB 7213000100017967 PUNB0465600
2 Canara 3627108000754 CNRB0008320
Bank
3.17 It is stated that the defendant nos.1 and 6 to 9 were
using the email [email protected]
[hereinafter referred to as ‘the said impugned
e-mail’] to issue such interview letters and to dupe
such innocent and gullible applicants/candidates.
The mobile number(s) being used by
defendant no.1 in such malicious activities are
alleged to be – +91-8745089106, +91-8750072495
and +91-9718770639 respectively.
3.18 It is stated that the defendant no.2 namely Google
LLC is the registrar of the email address
[email protected], which is
responsible for the management of said email
address of defendant no.1. The defendant no.3
namely Vodafone Idea Ltd. is the telecom service
provider for the said mobile numbers of defendant
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 10 of 37
-11-
no.1. The defendant nos. 4 and 5 i.e. Punjab
National Bank and Canara Bank respectively, are
controlling and operating the above-mentioned bank
accounts of defendant no.1.
3.19 It is stated that the defendant nos. 2 to 5 are
necessary and proper parties for adjudication of the
present dispute as they possess the necessary
information in order to trace down the perpetrators
duping the innocent and gullible candidates/ job
aspirants. It is stated that they are necessary parties
to adjudicate the present dispute and to provide
details about defendant no.1 and all the persons
related with defendant no.13.20 It is also stated that the defendant nos.1, 6 to 9 were
doing fraudulent activities as well as infringing and
violating the rights of the plaintiff, which they
possess on account of its trade name and all the
statutory and common law under its trade mark/
label. In addition, the defendant nos.1 and 6 to 9
were also violating the provision of Information &
Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) by cheating the
innocent candidates through personation (sic) and
using computer resources, in violation of S. 66 and
66D of the IT Act.
3.21 Thus, it is alleged that the said defendants have
dishonestly and malafidely adopted impugned
trademarks/labels L’OREAL, which are visually,
structurally identical and/or deceptively and
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 11 of 37
-12-
confusingly similar to the registered trademarks/
labels of the plaintiff’s L’OREAL in relation to
impugned interviews/ letters/activities/services,
thereby causing confusion and deception amongst
the unwary public/candidates/aspirants/job seekers
by making them believe that the origin of those
interviews / letters / services is the plaintiff
company. It has been averred that by doing so, the
said defendants are not only damaging the
reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff company by
passing off their substandard services/products as
that of the plaintiff company, but are also causing
financial loss to the plaintiff company by reaping
unfair advantage of the repute and distinctive
character of the trademarks of the plaintiff company.
4. On the basis of these facts and circumstances, the plaintiff
has filed the present suit against the defendants praying
therein, inter alia, that decree of permanent injunction may
be passed restraining the defendants and all others acting
for and on their behalf from using e-mail address
[email protected] or any other email address,
website, social media account, containing plaintiff’s said
trade mark L’OREAL or by any other mode or in any
manner using impugned trademarks/labels/ e-mails or any
other word mark/trade marks/label which may be identical
with and/or deceptively similar to the registered
trademarks/labels of the plaintiff L’OREAL in relation to
impugned fraudulent and violative activities, thereby
infringing plaintiff’s registered trademarks, copyright and
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 12 of 37
-13-
passing off their impugned activities as that of the plaintiff.
5. The suit was accompanied with application under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking ex parte ad interim
injunction. After hearing counsel of the plaintiff, the said
applications was allowed, vide order dated 11-06-2021
passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, thereby granting
an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff
and against the defendants, whereby, the defendant nos. 2
and 3 namely Google LLC and Vodafone Idea Limited
respectively were directed to disclose complete particulars/
user details of defendant no.1 and defendant nos. 4 and 5
namely Punjab National Bank and Canara Bank
respectively were directed to freeze the said bank accounts
of defendant no.1 and to disclose the details of the said
defendant, within one week from date of receipt of order
by them, apart from restraining defendant no.1 from using
the impugned trade mark/ label, till next date of hearing.
Besides, summons were also directed to be served upon
the defendants by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
6. On being served with the summons of the suit, the
defendant nos. 2, 3 and 5 put their appearance through
their respective counsels, however, none appeared on
behalf of defendant no.1 despite service, as per
proceedings dated 02-07-2021, as available on record.
7. As already noted above, the plaintiff got
substituted/replaced defendant no.1 Ashok Kumar/John
Doe with defendant nos.1 and 6 to 9 and accordingly, they
were directed to be served with the summons of the suit
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 13 of 37
-14-
and notice of application, vide order dated 17.09.2021.
Consequently, on being served, the defendant nos.7 and 9
put their appearance through counsel.
8. During the course of trial, separate applications under
Order I Rule 10(2) CPC were moved on behalf of
defendant nos. 2/Google LLC and 3/Vodafone Idea Ltd.
seeking their deletion from the array of parties. Keeping in
view the fact that they had duly complied with the
directions of this Court and had also furnished compliance
affidavit thereof on record and also that relevant reliefs
sought by the plaintiff against said two defendants, were
satisfied, the said applications were allowed and disposed
off, vide order dated 18.09.2023 passed by Ld. Predecessor
of this Court. Consequently, they were directed to be
deleted from the arrays of parties and accordingly,
amended memo of parties was directed to be filed on
record. The ex parte ad interim order dated 11.06.2021 was
also made absolute till the pendency of the suit, vide order
dated 18.09.2023 (supra).
9. Keeping in view the facts that despite being duly served
with the summons of the suit, defendant nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8
and 9 did not file written statement even within the
maximum period of 120 days from date of their respective
service, their opportunity to file written statement was
closed and accordingly, their defence was struck off, vide
order dated 23.02.2024. Besides, since, none had been
appearing on behalf of defendant nos.1, 4, 6, 8 and 9 since
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 14 of 37
-15-
long, therefore, they were proceeded against ex parte, vide
same order dated 23.02.2024, passed by this Court.
10. In his written statement filed by defendant no.7, he has
contested the present suit, inter alia, on the following
grounds:-
10.1 There is no cause of action available to the plaintiff
to file the present suit as against him.
10.2 He has disputed to have sent any e-mails or call
letters for alleged employment for interview in the
name of the plaintiff i.e. L’Oreal, nor received any
amount from any person under the garb of alleged
interview or recruitment. It is stated that alleged
e-mail i.e. [email protected] does not
belong to him, nor he ever used said alleged e-mail
id for the purpose of alleged recruitment and
interview. The plaintiff has impleaded defendant
no.7 merely on the basis of compliance affidavit
filed by defendant no.3/ Vodafone Idea Ltd.,
wherein, it was alleged that SIM No. 8750072495
belongs to defendant no.7. It is, however, claimed
that said SIM number was never used for the
purpose of making calls for interview or recruitment
with L’Oreal and no supporting document/ evidence
showing that defendant no.7 ever made any phone
call to any person regarding alleged interview,
recruitment or to deposit money, has been filed
alongwith plain by the plaintiff.
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 15 of 37
-16-
10.3 On merit, the defendant has denied the averments
made in para nos. 1 to 18, 20 and 21, of the plaint
for want of knowledge.
10.4 In response to para no.19 of the plaint, the defendant
has denied it for want of knowledge, while claiming
that he has no concern whatsoever either with
defendant no.1 or any of his accomplices who
allegedly induced the people by issuing e-mails or
call letters for employment or interview letter on
imitated letter heads of L’Oreal. He further claimed
that the alleged bank accounts with Punjab National
Bank and Canara Bank (Defendant no.4 and 5
respectively) do not belong to him and aforesaid
SIM number would have been misused in order to
harass and extort money. Remaining paras of the
plaint have also been disputed and denied by him on
more or less similar grounds, as already noted
hereinbefore and thus, same are not being repeated
herein for the sake of brevity.
10.5 On the basis of aforesaid stand taken by defendant
no.7, he has prayed for dismissal of the suit as
against him.
11. The plaintiff filed replication to the written statement filed
by defendant no.7, wherein, it has reiterated the averments
made in the plaint while denying the averments made in
the written statement and has prayed for decreeing the suit
as against the said defendant.
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 16 of 37
-17-
12. Since pleadings qua defendant no.7 were complete, the
following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent
injunction against defendants except defendant nos.
2 and 3 thereby restraining them from using
impugned trade mark L’OREAL or any other mark
which is identical with and/ or deceptively similar to
plaintiff’s trade mark L’OREAL which amounts to
infringement of plaintiff’s said trade mark,
copyright and is liable to be restrained from passing
off their goods as that of plaintiff, as prayed in
Prayer Clause No. (a)? OPP.
(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek issuance of
directions to the defendant no.4 and 5 in terms of
Prayer Clause no.(e). If so, what direction(s)? OPP.
(iii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to order for delivery up
of all impugned goods, finished and unfinished
material bearing impugned mark/ label/ trade name/
domain name for the purposes of destruction and
erasure, as prayed in Prayer Clause no.(f)? OPP.
(iv) Whether plaintiff is entitled to an order of rendition
of accounts of profits earned by the defendant by
their impugned illegal trade activities and is entitled
to a decree for the amount so found in favour of
plaintiff on such rendition of account, as prayed in
Prayer Clause no. (h)? OPP
(v) In case, the issue no.5 is answered in
negative,whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 17 of 37
-18-
sum of Rs.3,05,000/- towards damages in its favour,
as prayed in Prayer Clause no. (g)? OPP
(vi) Relief.
13. It may be noted that after framing the issues, while
exercising the power conferred under Order XVA Rule
6(o) and (p) CPC, the Court had directed that the evidence
shall be recorded by Ld. Local Commissioner, appointed
by this Court on commission basis, vide order dated
23-02-2024 (supra). Accordingly, the plaintiff and the
defendant no.7 were directed to lead their respective
evidence before Ld. Local Commissioner, in terms of the
timeline/ schedule framed therein.
14. It may be noted that the plaintiff led its evidence before
Ld. Local Commissioner and examined sole witness
namely Sh. Anand Arya /its AR as PW1 and closed its
evidence on 22.10.2024.
15. PW-1 led his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit
(Ex.PW1/A) and deposed in terms of the averments
made in the plaint. He has relied upon the following
documents:-
Srl.no Document/Particulars Exhibit(s)
1. True representation of plaintiff’s Ex.PW1/1
said trade marks/ labelsCS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 18 of 37
-19-
Srl.no Document/Particulars Exhibit(s)
2. Copy of the status page, journal Ex.PW1/2
copy and the Certificate of (Colly.)
Registration for the plaintiff’s
registration under no. 165778 in
class 03
3. Copy of the LPC in respect of the Ex.PW1/3
plaintiff s registration under no. (Colly.)
165778 in class 03
4. List of plaintiff’s other trade mark Ex.PW1/4
registration in India (Colly.)
5. Whatsapp conversations, Ex.PW1/5
screenshots of mails and all fake (Colly.)
interview letters and related
products showing defendant no.1’s
malicious and fraudulent activities
6. News articles & awards in respect Ex.PW1/6
of the plaintiff (Colly.)
7. Screenshot showing the presence of Ex.PW1/7
products under the plaintiff’s brand
within the jurisdiction of this Court
8. Power-of-Attorney executed by the Ex.PW1/8
plaintiff company in favour of Mrs.
Geetika Chawla
9. Resolution – Authority dated Ex.PW1/9
20.02.2023 in favour of Mr. Anand (Colly.)
AryaCS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 19 of 37
-20-
Srl.no Document/Particulars Exhibit(s)
10. Copy of e-mail(s) dated 01.07.2021 Ex.PW1/10
& 02.07.2021 shared by defendant (Colly.)
no.2 i.e. Google LLC with the
plaintiff
11. Copy of compliance report/ Ex.PW1/11
affidavit dated 01.07.2021 filed by (Colly.)
the defendant no.3 i.e. Vodafone
Idea Ltd.
12. Copy of compliance report/ Ex.PW1/12
affidavit dated 24.06.2021 filed by (Colly.)
the defendant no.5 i.e. Canara Bank
13. Affidavit under Order XI Rule 6 (3) Ex.PW1/B
of the Commercial Courts,
Commercial Appellate Division of
High Courts Act, 2015 in support of
electronic records
16. PW1 has been cross-examined at length on behalf of
defendant no.7. During his cross-examination, PW1
testified that he was working as Sr. Executive in Meena
Bansal Trade Mark Co., but, he never worked with the
plaintiff company. Sh. P. L. Mishra, Company Secretary of
plaintiff company had issued authorization letter
Ex.PW1/9 in his favour. He did not remember whether he
had received the certificate under S. 65-B of Indian
Evidence Act or not and also could not disclose as to in
whose possession/ supervision, the electronic equipments
are kept and simply stated that same was a matter of
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 20 of 37
-21-
record. However, he denied the suggestion that the entire
set of electronic records relied by plaintiff in this case, are
invalid or void for want of requisite Certificate in terms of
S. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. He feigned ignorance that
defendant no.7 has nothing to do with alleged bank
account no. 3627108000754 with Canara Bank, while
stating that it was a matter of record. In response to the
specific question put to him as to whether the name of
defendant no.7 and alleged SIM No. 8750072495
reflects anywhere in the Google Account Report submitted
by defendant no.2, he replied that it was also a matter of
record. However, he denied that defendant no.7
did not make any interview call by the aforesaid
SIM number.
17. It may be noted that the defendant no.7 through his counsel
made statement before Ld. Local Commissioner on
22.10.2024 itself that he did not wish to examine any
witness in his defence and accordingly, closed his evidence
on the same day.
18. Pertinently, when the present case was listed for judgment,
Ld. Counsel of plaintiff made statement that the plaintiff
wishes to withdraw the present suit qua defendant nos. 4, 5
and 7 namely Punjab National Bank, Canara Bank and
Mr. Asif respectively, and thus, he sought permission to
withdraw the present suit qua said three defendants, which
was allowed vide order dated 07-04-2025. Consequently,
suit qua said three defendants has been dismissed as
withdrawn. In view thereof, the suit survives only with
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 21 of 37
-22-
respect to defendant no.1, 6, 8 and 9, who are already
ex parte.
19. It may also be noted here that Ld. Counsel of plaintiff
made statement to give up the reliefs as prayed in Prayer
Clause nos. 32(b), 32(f) and 32(h) of the plaint regarding
restraining the defendants [defendant nos.1, 6, 8 and 9]
from disposing off or dealing with their assets, delivery up
and rendition of accounts of profits respectively.
Accordingly, the plaintiff was permitted to give up the said
reliefs, vide order dated 07-04-2025.
20. I have already heard Ld. counsel of the plaintiff. I have
also gone through the material available on record
including the plaint and the evidence, oral as well as
documentary, led from the side of the plaintiff.
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS
21. My issue wise findings are as under:-
ISSUE NO.1
22. Firstly, I shall take up the issue no.(i), which is reproduced
here as under:-
Issue no. (i) – Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree
of permanent injunction against defendants except
defendant nos. 2 and 3 thereby restraining them
from using impugned trade mark L’OREAL or any
other mark which is identical with and/ or
deceptively similar to plaintiff’s trade mark
L’OREAL which amounts to infringement ofCS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 22 of 37
-23-
plaintiff’s said trade mark, copyright and is liable to
be restrained from passing off their goods as that of
plaintiff, as prayed in Prayer Clause No. (a)? OPP.
23. The onus to prove the aforesaid issue was placed upon
the plaintiff. In order to discharge its burden, the
plaintiff has examined sole witness i.e. its AR as PW1,
as already noted above. He tendered his evidence by
way of affidavit, thereby deposing on identical lines of
the averments made in the plaint and has proved the
relevant documents, which are already noted above.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF:
24. In support of his case, Ld. Counsel of plaintiff advanced
the following arguments:-
24.1 The entire testimony of PW-1 has remained
unchallenged and un-rebutted from the side of
defendant nos. 1, 6, 8 and 9 and therefore, the
plaintiff is entitled to the decree, as prayed for. In
support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel also relied
upon the documents [Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/12 and
Ex.PW1/B.]24.2 Further, the trademarks /labels L’OREAL are well
known trademarks/ labels of the plaintiff and are
registered in India under the provisions of Trade
Marks Act in favour of the plaintiff, which are valid
and subsisting till date.
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 23 of 37
-24-
24.3 Further, the art works involved in the said
trademarks/ labels L’OREAL are original artistic
works and the plaintiff holds copyright therein.
24.4 Further, the plaintiff spends huge amount of money
in advertising and promotion of its products under
the said trademarks /labels and thus, said marks
enjoy huge goodwill and reputation in business
community and amongst public in general in India
and across the world.
24.5 Further, the use of impugned trade marks/labels as
adopted by the defendant nos.1, 6, 8 and 9, which
are identical and/or confusingly or deceptively
similar to the registered trademarks of the plaintiff,
not only amount to committing fraud upon the
plaintiff, but also upon the unwary general public,
due to which, the plaintiff suffer huge monetary loss
and its goodwill and reputation are also at stake and
therefore, he urged that the suit may be decreed in
favour of the plaintiff and against the said four
defendants, thereby restraining them and all others
acting for and on their behalf from using the said
impugned trade-marks/ labels.
25. As regards the jurisdiction of this Court, Ld. Counsel of
plaintiff argued as under:-
25.1 The defendant nos. 1, 6, 8 and 9 have been soliciting
and networking their impugned services through
e-mail i.e. [email protected] and
mobile nos. +91-8745089106, +91-8750072495 and
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 24 of 37
-25-
+91-9718770639 to the gullible and innocent
applicants/ job aspirants. It is submitted that said
defendants are approaching gullible people with
fake job offers under the name and style of
plaintiff’s trade mark through circulation and
dissemination of such job offers, emails, interview
letters, etc., and the plaintiff has credible
apprehension that the same would immediately be
done in the future within the territorial jurisdiction
of this Court and thus, said defendants are
committing the impugned acts of infringement and
passing-off within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court by such soliciting and networking in relation
to their impugned services through said e-mails and
mobile numbers. Further, it is argued that the
plaintiff’s above said proprietary rights are being
prejudicially affected or likely to be affected in New
Delhi due to said defendants’ impugned activities.
Further, the dynamic effects of said defendants’
activities are being felt in the markets of New Delhi,
which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court and thus, it is contended that whole or part
cause of action has arisen within the territorial
jurisdiction of this Court within the meaning of S.
20 CPC.
25.2 Further, it is contended that the plaintiff is also
carrying out its said business under the said
trademark/label through its Dabur New U Store at
Ambiance Mall, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110017,
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 25 of 37
-26-
which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this
Court. The goods of the plaintiff are also sold,
purchased, available and delivered through online
marketplaces like Flipkart and Amazon, etc., which
are interactive in nature and freely accessible within
the jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, it is contended
that this Court further has also territorial jurisdiction
to entertain and try the present suit within the
meaning of S. 134 (2) of the Trademarks Act, 1999
and also under S. 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION:
26. Firstly, I shall decide whether this Court has territorial
jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit. PW1
namely Sh. Anand Arya, who being the sole witness
examined by plaintiff during trial, by way of affidavit in
evidence, has testified /deposed on the lines of the
averments made in the plaint. The PW1 has proved
Screenshot taken from the website of
www.ambiencemalls.com as Ex.PW1/7, to show the
presence of products under the plaintiff’s brand at New U
Store, 2nd Floor, Ambience Mall, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi,
which indisputably falls within territorial jurisdiction of
this Court. The whole testimony of PW1 remained
unchallenged and uncontroverted as the said four
defendants have neither filed written statement, nor have
chosen to cross-examine PW1.
27. In view of the foregoing reasons and in the totality
of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 26 of 37
-27-
view the fact that evidence of PW1 remained unchallenged
and uncontroverted, the Court is of the considered
opinion that at least part of cause of action has
arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court
and therefore, this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to
try and entertain the suit.
PERMANENT INJUNCTION:
28. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled as ” Renaissance
Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai & Ors“, reported as
MANU/SC/0066/2022, has laid down law with respect to
infringement of trade mark, to quote:-
43. The legislative scheme is clear that when the mark of
the defendant is identical with the registered trade mark of
the plaintiff and the goods or services covered are similar
to the ones covered by such registered trade mark, it may
be necessary to prove that it is likely to cause confusion on
the part of the public, or which is likely to have an
association with the registered trade mark. Similarly, when
the trade mark of the plaintiff is similar to the registered
trade mark of the defendant and the goods or services
covered by such registered trade mark are identical or
similar to the goods or services covered by such registered
trade mark, it may again be necessary to establish that it is
likely to cause confusion on the part of the public
However, when the trade mark of the defendant is
identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and
that the goods or services of the defendant is identical with
the goods or services covered by registered trade mark, the
Court shall presume that is likely to cause confusion on
the part of the public.
45. It could thus be seen that its Court has pointed out the
distinction between the causes of action and right to relief
in sequiter for passing off and for infringement of
registered trademark. It has been held that the essentials of
a passing off action with those in respect of an action
complaining of an infringement of a registered
trademark,cannot be equated. It has been held that though
an action for passing off is a Common Law remedy being
an action for deceit, that is, a passing off by a person of its
own goods as those of another; the action for infringement
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 27 of 37
-28-
is a statutory right conferred on the registered proprietor of
registered trade mark for the vindication of the exclusive
rights to the use of the trade mark in relation to those
goods. The use by the defendant of the trademark of the
plaintiff is a sine qua non in the case of an action for
infringement. It has further been held that if the essential
features of the trade mark of the plaintiff has been adopted
by the defendant, the fact that the get-up, packing and
other writing or marks on the goods or on the packets in
which he offers its goods for sale show marked
differences, or indicate clearly a trade origin different
from that of the registered proprietor of the mark, would
be immaterial in case of infringement of the trade mark,
whereas in the case of a passing off, the defendant may
escape liability if he can show that the added matter is
sufficient to distinguish its goods from those of the
plaintiff.
47. It could thus be seen that its Court again reiterated that
the question to be asked in an infringement action is as to
whether the defendant is using a mark which is same as, or
which, is a colourable imitation of the plaintiff’ registered
trade mark. It has further been held that though the get up
of the defendant’ goods may be so different from the
plaintiff’ goods and the prices may also be so different that
there would be no probability of deception of the public,
nevertheless even in such cases, i.e. in an infringement
action, an injunction would be issued as soon as it is
proved that defendant is improperly using the plaintiff’
mark. It has been reiterated that no case of actual
deception nor any actual damage needs to be proved in
such cases its Court has further held that though two
actions are closely similar in some respects, in an action
for infringement, where the defendant’ trade mark is
identical with the plaintiff’ trade mark, the Court will not
enquire whether the infringement in such as is likely to
deceive or cause confusion.
29. Further, our own Hon’ble High Court in the case titled as
‘Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Superior Industries
Ltd‘. 2003 (27) PTC 63 (Del) laid down the principle
as to how infringement of trade mark is to be seen,
to quote:-
12.It is well settled that in an action for alleged
infringement of a registered trade mark, if the impugned
marked used by the defendant is identical with the
registered trade mark of the plaintiff, no further questions
have been to be addressed and it has to be held that there
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 28 of 37
-29-
is indeed an infringement. If the mark is not identical, the
matter has to be further considered and it has to be seen
whether the mark of the defendant is deceptively similar to
that of the plaintiff. Deceptive similarity means that the
mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion in relation to
goods in respect of which the plaintiff got its mark
registered. For the purpose of its comparison, the two
marks have to be compared, not by placing them side by
side, but by asking the question whether having due regard
to relevant surrounding circumstances, defendant’s mark is
similar to that of the plaintiff, as would be remembered by
persons possessed of an average memory with its usual
imperfections. On the touchstone of its query, it is to be
determined whether the mark of the defendant is likely to
deceive or cause confusion. The sequetur to the aforesaid
preposition of law, is that, in an action of infringement, for
the success by the plaintiff, he need not prove that the
whole of its registered trade mark has been copied, but he
can also succeed, if, he shows that the mark used by the
defendant is similar to the mark of the plaintiff, as it would
be numbered by persons possessed of an average memory
with its usual imperfection or with its usual imperfection
or that its essential particulars or the distinguishing or
essential feature has been copied (ILR 197 (II) Delhi 225
Jagan Nath Prem Nath v. Bhartiya Dhoop Karvalaya
(Para-7).
30. In view of above law, let’s examine the facts of the case in
hand. The averments made in the plaint are duly supported
by the documents proved during the course of evidence.
PW-1 has deposed on the identical lines of averments
made in the plaint and has proved various documents, as
already referred to above.
31. In the case titled as “Amrish Agarwal Vs. M/s Venus
Home Appliances Pvt. Ltd” in CM (M) 1059/2018 dated
27-08-2019, passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was,
inter alia, directed that in trademark infringement matters,
the following documents ought to be necessarily filed
along with the plaint. The relevant Para no.7 of its
judgment is reproduced hereunder:
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 29 of 37
-30-
“7. It is directed that in trade mark infringement matters
the following documents ought to be necessarily filed
along with the plaint:
(i) Legal Proceedings Certificate (LPC) of the trade
mark showing the mark, date of application, date of
user claimed, conditions and disclaimers if any,
assignments and licenses granted, renewals etc.,
(ii) If the LPC is not available, at the time of filing of
the suit and urgent orders of injunction are being
sought, a copy of the trade mark registration certificate,
copy of the trade mark journal along with the latest
status report from the website of the Trade Mark
Registry. its should be accompanied by an averment in
the pleadings that LPC is applied for. Specific averment
ought to be made that there are no disclaimers imposed
on the mark and the mark stands renewed. Any licenses
and assignments ought to be pleaded.
(iii) xxxx
(iv) In the case of (ii), the party ought to file the LPC
prior to the commencement of the trial, if any aspect of
the trade mark registration is being disputed by the
opposite side”
32. In this case, the plaintiff has relied upon and has filed
printout of online status reports from the website of trade
mark registry along with copy of Registration Certificate
and LPC, which are duly proved by PW-1 as Ex.PW1/2
(Colly.) and Ex.PW1/3 (Colly.) respectively. As per these
documents, it is duly shown that trademark L’OREAL is
registered as ‘word mark’ under class 3 in favour of the
plaintiff since long, which is valid upto 04.09.2030.
33. PW1 has also proved whatsapp conversations, screenshots
of mails and all fake interview letters and related products,
thereby showing defendant no.1’s malicious and fraudulent
activities as Ex.PW1/5 (Colly.). According to these
documents, it is duly shown that one of the candidates who
had been asked to pay money, in order to go ahead with
the interview process by the defendants through e-mail id
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 30 of 37
-31-
i.e. [email protected], had informed his friend
who, in turn, had brought the same to the notice of the
plaintiff company through e-mail dated 04.06.2021 and
also forwarded the e-mail so received from the defendants.
A letter dated 31.05.2021, which is also part of said
documents, printed on the letter head – L’OREAL PARIS,
bearing L’Oreal India Pvt. Ltd. on top right margin and
L’OREAL PROFESSION on the bottom, which is
apparently written by defendants to candidate (whose
name is not mentioned), stating therein the date of
interview and mode of interview and timing, apart from a
note, which stated that candidate had to deposit a
refundable security amount Rs.2,960/- by
cash/NEFT/RTGS/IMPS into the Company Account.
Screenshots of WhatsApp are also part of these documents,
which also mention L’OREAL India Pvt. Ltd. and
[email protected].
34. As already noted above, the defendants nos.1, 6, 8 and 9,
despite being served with summons of the suit, chose not
to appear before this Court and consequently, they were
proceeded against as ex parte. Moreover, none appeared on
their behalf to cross-examine PW1. Therefore, the entire
testimony of PW-1 has gone un-rebutted, uncontroverted
and unchallenged and thus, the case of the plaintiff stood
proved as against the said four defendants on the basis
of preponderance of probability. It is duly established
on record that the said trademark/word mark are duly
registered in favour of the plaintiff and also that same
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 31 of 37
-32-
are valid and subsisting as on date in favour of
the plaintiff.
35. The impugned letters/ e-mails bearing trade name/ word
mark as adopted by the said defendants are identical and/or
deceptively similar to plaintiff’s registered trade mark/
word mark L’OREAL.
36. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,
the Court is of the view that the plaintiff has succeeded
in proving that defendant nos. 1, 6, 8 and 9 were indulging
in the impugned activities and had issued the impugned
letters bearing trade mark/ word mark L’OREAL
which is identical, deceptively and confusingly similar to
the plaintiff’ registered trade mark/ word mark L’OREAL
and therefore, trademarks and copyright of plaintiff
company are required to be protected.
Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to decree
of permanent injunction, whereby the defendant nos. 1, 6,
8 and 9 are liable be restrained from using trade mark /
word mark L’OREAL or any other word mark/ mark/
trade mark/ label which may be identical with and/
or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’ said trade mark/
labels L’OREAL in relation to their impugned
activities, thereby infringing plaintiff’ registered
trademark, copyright and from passing off their impugned
activities/ services as that of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the
aforesaid issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and
against the defendant nos. 1, 6, 8 and 9.
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 32 of 37
-33-
ISSUE NO.2
37. Now I shall decide issue no. (ii), which is reproduced
hereunder:-
Issue no. (ii) – Whether plaintiff is entitled to seek
issuance of directions to the defendant no.4 and 5 in
terms of Prayer Clause no. (e). If so, what
direction(s)? OPP.
38. In view of statement of counsel of plaintiff made on
07.04.2025 and consequent order thereupon, no specific
direction is called for from the Court in the present
proceedings.
39. However, record would show that defendant nos. 4 and 5
i.e. Punjab National Bank and Canara Bank respectively,
were directed vide order dated 11.06.2021 to freeze the
bank accounts as per the following details :
S. Bank Account No. IFSF Code
No Name
1 PNB 7213000100017967 PUNB0465600
2 Canara 3627108000754 CNRB0008320
Bank
40. Keeping in view the above fact and considering the
submission made by Ld. Counsel of plaintiff as also that of
defendant no.5/ Canara Bank to the effect that certain
amount may be lying deposited in the aforesaid two
freezed bank accounts, it is hereby made clear that this
Court has not given any findings with respect to the right
of ownership over such amount(s) lying deposited therein.
Hence, it is hereby observed that the rightful claimant(s)
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 33 of 37
-34-
would be well within his/her/their rights to get the said
issue regarding their entitlement to have the amount(s)
lying deposited therein, adjudicated upon by availing the
appropriate remedy before appropriate forum, in
accordance with law. This issue stands decided in these
terms.
ISSUE NO.3
41. Now I shall decide issue no. (iii) regarding delivery up,
which is reproduced hereunder:-
Issue no. (iii) – Whether plaintiff is entitled to order
for delivery up of all impugned goods, finished and
unfinished material bearing impugned mark/ label/
trade name/ domain name for the purposes of
destruction and erasure, as prayed in Prayer Clause
no. (f)? OPP.
42. No finding is required to be given in respect of aforesaid
issue, in view of statement of counsel of plaintiff made on
07.04.2025 and consequent order thereupon.
ISSUE NO.4
43. Now I shall decide issue no. (iv) regarding rendition of
accounts, which is reproduced hereunder:-
Issue no. (iv) – Whether plaintiff is entitled to an
order of rendition of accounts of profits earned by
the defendant by their impugned illegal trade
activities and is entitled to a decree for the amountCS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 34 of 37
-35-
so found in favour of plaintiff on such rendition of
account, as prayed in Prayer Clause no. (h)? OPP
44. No finding is required to be given in respect of aforesaid
issue, in view of statement of counsel of plaintiff made on
07.04.2025 and consequent order thereupon.
ISSUE NO.5
45. Now I shall decide issue no. (v) regarding damages, which
is reproduced hereunder:-
Issue no. (v) – In case, the issue no.5 is answered in
negative, whether plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
sum of Rs.3,05,000/- towards damages in its favour,
as prayed in Prayer Clause no. (g)? OPP
46. Ld. Counsel of plaintiff submitted that punitive damages
may be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the
said defendants. In support of his submissions, Ld.
Counsel of the plaintiff has relied upon the judgment of
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of ‘LT Foods Limited v.
Saraswati Trading Company‘ decided on 11-11-2022
having neutral citation: 2022/DHC/004806.
47. On similar facts, in case titled as Super Cassettes
Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. HRTN Cable Network, 2017 SCC
Online Delhi 10943, wherein the defendants were ex parte
and did not participate in the proceeding, counsel for the
plaintiff had sought punitive damages, which was declined
in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench
of Delhi High Court in case titled ‘Hindustan Unilever
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 35 of 37
-36-
Limited v. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited’, ILR (2014) II
Delhi 1288.
48. However, as per law laid down by Hon’ble Division Bench
in case of Hindustan Unilever Limited (supra), there is a
need to see as to whether the case of plaintiff herein falls for
exemplary damages.
49. The defendant nos. 1, 6, 8 and 9 did not show up and
participate in the proceedings in order to deprive the plaintiff
to the benefit of rendition of accounts. Accordingly, keeping
in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case and
the relevant averments appearing in Para No.28 of the plaint
to the effect, in the last week of May, 2021, it came to across
the fake interview letters being forwarded to the plaintiff by
the duped/ potential candidate, whereas, the present suit has
been filed in the first week of June, 2021, the Court is of the
opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages
quantified as Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each
from the said four defendants. Accordingly, this issue is
decided in these terms in favour of plaintiff and against the
defendant nos.1, 6, 8 and 9.
RELIEF:
50. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the Court is of the
view that the plaintiff has been able to prove its case on the
basis of preponderance of probability. Thus, the suit is
decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant
nos.1, 6, 8 and 9 and the following reliefs are granted:-
50.1 Suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 36 of 37
-37-
defendant nos. 1, 6, 8 and 9 qua permanent
injunction thereby restraining them by themselves as
also through their individual proprietors, partners,
agents, representative, distributors, assigns, heirs,
successors, stockists and all other acting for and on
their behalf from using the e-mail address i.e.
[email protected], or any other email
address, website, social media account containing
the plaintiff’s trade mark L’OREAL or any other
word mark/ mark/ trade mark/ label which may be
identical with and/ or deceptively similar to the
plaintiffs’ said trade mark / label L’OREAK in
relation to their impugned, fraudulent and violative
activities and from doing any other acts or deeds
thereby infringing plaintiff’s registered trademarks,
copyright and passing off their impugned services as
that of the plaintiff.
50.2 Plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
Fifty Thousand only) each from the defendant nos.
1, 6, 8 and 9 towards damages; and
50.3 Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the
plaintiff.
51. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
52. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed
by VIDYA
Announced in the open court VIDYA PRAKASH
PRAKASH Date:
on 7th Day of April, 2025. 2025.04.07
16:04:41 +0530
(VIDYA PRAKASH)
DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS(COMM.)/194/2021 Page 37 of 37
[ad_1]
Source link