* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Pronounced on: 28th September, 2015

+ CS(OS) No.1236/2012
DLF LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through Mr.Aditya Shankar, Adv. with
Mr.Naman Joshi & Mr.Mohit
Mudgal, Advs.

versus

SOHUM SHOPPE LIMITED & ORS ..... Defendants

Through Defendants are ex parte.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction

restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, unfair competition,
dilution for rendition of accounts of profits/damages, delivery up etc.
against the defendants.
2. The defendants were proceeded ex-parte earlier. The plaintiff
has produced evidence by way of affidavit of Mr.Manish Kumar,
authorized representative of the plaintiff. Board Resolution in his
favour has been proved as Ex.PW-1/1. The ex-parte order dated 19th
October, 2014 has not been set-aside, as no steps were taken
despite of knowledge.
3. It is alleged in the suit that DLF Group was founded in 1946
with a vision which seeks to usher in better tomorrow by providing

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 1 of 21

people with improved quality of life and living standards. The plaintiff
has developed as many as 21 urban townships in Delhi such as
Krishna Nagar in East Delhi, South Extension, Greater Kailash, Hauz
Khas, Rajouri Garden, Model Town, Ankur Vihar and Dilshad
Extension II in Ghaziabad, UP, "DLF Qutab Enclave Complex" now
known as DLF City in Gurgaon etc. The plaintiff ventured into Group
Housing Projects in the year 1982, community shopping centers -in
the year 1989, "A" grade office spaces in the year 1991, organized
retail complexes in the year 2002. In the year 2003, the business and
activities of the plaintiff and its group companies expanded across 11
cities in India and in the year 2004, the plaintiff launched 125 acre
cyber city and IT Parks across various metros. Later, in the year
2005, the plaintiff also launched its hotel business.
4. It is averred in the plaint that the development business of
plaintiff includes Homes and Commercial Complexes. The Homes
business caters to 3 segments of the residential market - Mid-
Income, Luxury and Super Luxury. The product offering involves a
wide range of products including condominiums, duplexes, row
houses and apartments of varying sizes.
The Retail-Malls and Commercial Complexes SBU (Strategic
Business Unit) is a major thrust area for the plaintiff. Currently, the
plaintiff is actively creating new shopping and entertainment spaces
all over the country. The company has approximately 24 million sq.ft
of rental business through office and operational mall segments. The
rental business has 21.82 m.s.f of area under construction as of 31st
March, 2012 with approximately 43 m.s.f. available for potential

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 2 of 21

development (including area under construction). These include
categories of prime downtown shopping districts, shopping centers
and super luxury malls amongst others. The plaintiff is India's largest
real estate company in terms of revenues, earnings, market
capitalization and developable area. It has a 62-year track record of
sustained growth, customer satisfaction and innovation.
5. "EMPORIO" was India's first luxury mall and it began operating
in the year 2008. It has successfully combined retail and leisure o
offer a day out destination. The trademark "EMPORIO" was subject
of extensive launch coverage in print media all over India and even
outside India, such as in Dubai, since 2004, inviting investment and
bookings from well-known brands from all over the world. Copies of
the print media advertisements pertaining to the trademark of the
plaintiff for the period 2004-2010 have been exhibited as Ex.PW 1/3.
Copies of the plaintiff’s brochure pertaining to its mall EMPORIO
have been exhibited as Ex. PW 1/4.
6. The plaintiff has claimed having received various awards and
recognition for its luxurious mall under the trademark "EMPORIO"
which include, inter alia,
a. Company of the Year award for DLF and Iconic Project
2008 award for DLFEMPORIO conferred by the Global
Initiative for Restructuring Environment & Management at the
Urban Planning and Real Estate Leadership Summit, 2008.
b. Most Admired Specialty Mall (Metros) award for 2009,
2010, and 2011 conferred by Images Group.

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 3 of 21

 c. Imint award for being the Most Admired Specialty Mall
(Metros) for 2010 and 2011 conferred by Shoppers 85
Consumers Insight.
Copies of the sample certificates of awards received by
DLFEMPORIO have been exhibited as Ex. PW 1/5.
7. The trademark of the plaintiff "EMPORIO" has been extensively
promoted through various means including newspapers, magazines,
hoardings, events, flyers, sales promotional material etc. at huge
pecuniary expense of Rs.12.58 crores from 2004 onwards till date of
filing of the present suit. The plaintiff also maintains a website with
the name of www.dlfemporio.com which gives the full details about
the plaintiff’s mall. People can also email enquiries and send in
queries at dlfemporio@dlf.in. The screen shots showing the website
of the plaintiff having depiction of its trademark EMPORIO has been
reproduced herein below:

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 4 of 21

Copies of the printouts from the plaintiff’s website
www.dlfemporio.com have been exhibited as Ex. PW 1/6.
8. The information about the brand name EMPORIO of the
plaintiff is also featured on various websites like
www.luxurionworld.com,www.businessworld.in,
www.indiaretailing.com, etc. A search on Google of the word
"EMPORIO" shows the plaintiff’s website as the top link which shows
that the plaintiff’s trademark has garnered the attention of the market
and is popular amongst consumers in India. The plaintiff’s mall gets
approximately 4500 hits per month and has a Wikipedia entry
providing details of the plaintiff’s mall. The screenshots of the
aforementioned search and Wikipedia entry have been depicted
herein below:

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 5 of 21

9. It is claimed that the plaintiff’s mall EMPORIO has also been
advertised by word of mouth across the country as well as
internationally by visitors of the mall. Various retailers operating out of
the mall also indirectly advertise the plaintiff’s mall. The plaintiff’s
trademark EMPORIO possesses formidable goodwill and reputation
in the trade, and amongst consumers which is evident from the
statement of annual sales as well as promotional and advertisement
expenses pertaining thereto have been reproduced here as under:-

Copies of the sample promotional invoices pertaining to the

trademark of the plaintiff have been exhibited as Ex. PW 1/7.

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 6 of 21

10. It is the testimony of PW-1 that on account of prior adoption,
long and continuous use, extensive advertising, promotional events,
breath-taking interiors, renowned architects, world-class facilities,
world famous brands under one roof, extensive marketing network,
enormous sales, and painstaking quality control undertaken by the
plaintiff, the trademark "EMPORIO" has acquired huge goodwill and
reputation amongst the consumers, traders, and the public at large.
Thus, the brand "EMPORIO" has become synonymous with a luxury
mall and it is one of a kind belonging to the plaintiff only. Copy of the
sample agreement pertaining to EMPORIO since 2005 has been
exhibited as Ex. PW 1/8.
On account of long usage since 2004-05, and its premium ultra
luxurious quality, the brand EMPORIO has acquired high degree of
distinctiveness and recognition amongst consumers and is
considered a "well known" trademark which requires protection of the
widest extent and beyond limitation or constriction of category of
goods or services that it is used for. Such goodwill and reputation
constitutes a valuable intellectual property right that is owned by and
exclusively belongs to the plaintiff and the same needs to be
protected by this Court against misuse, misappropriation, or dilution
by unscrupulous and dishonest traders, who use them to derive
unethical and unlawful benefit therefrom and to practice deception on
consumers at large.
11. The plaintiff in order to accord statutory protection and to
prevent misappropriation, dilution, and misuse, the plaintiff (includes

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 7 of 21

predecessors in title and business) applied for and has obtained
registration of the trademark "EMPORIO" in India as follows:
Registration Class Registration Goods
No./Trademark Date

1390256 37 07.10.2005 Building construction;

EMPORIO repair; installation services,
commercial retail property. development
services, restoration of retail premises,
building of fair stalls and shops, cleaning of
shops, conversion of shop premises, repair
of shop fitments, shop fitting.

1389933 35 06.10.2005 The bringing together, for the benefit of

EMPORIO others, of a variety of goods, enabling
customers to conveniently view and
purchase those goods in a wholesale or
retail outlet; arranging of or conducting
exhibitions. events, shows for advertising,
business, retailing, wholesaling.
supermarket, hypermarket, malls, sales
management
services; television, radio and outdoor
advertising, advertising, business,
business management.
research, information
advisory.

1389919 19 06.10.2005 Building materials (non-metallic); non-

EMPORIO metallic rigid pipes for building; asphalt.
Pitch and bitumen; nonmetallic
transportable buildings; monuments, not of
metal.

Copies of the trademark registration certificates mentioned

hereinabove have been exhibited as Ex. PW 1/9. Copy of the search
report of the trademark EMPORIO in Class 37 has been exhibited
herewith as Ex. PW 1/10.

The registrations mentioned hereinabove are valid and

subsisting in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the registered

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 8 of 21

proprietor of the trademark as mentioned hereinabove, having
exclusive statutory right to use thereof.
12. Defendant No.1, Sohum Shoppe Ltd. is a company
incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered
office at Shopper's Point, 4th Floor, H.B. Road, Fancy Bazar,
Guwahati - 781001, Assam. The defendants No. 2 to 4 are
directors of defendant No. 1 as reflected from the website of the
Registrar of Companies. The defendants are engaged in the
business of multi-brand outlet and have been carrying on its
business under the trademark and trade name SOHUM SHOPPE to
which the plaintiff has no objection. However, the grievance of the
plaintiff is that the defendants have launched a multi-brand mall
under the trademark SOHUMEMPORIO. Copies of the print outs
from the website of the Registrar of Companies showing the details
of defendant Nos. 2 to 4 have been exhibited as Ex. PW 1/11.
13. The plaintiff aggrieved by the said use of the defendants has
filed the present suit, as the defendants have taken the entire
trademark EMPORIO with the prefix SOHUM of the plaintiff. It is
established on record that the adoption and use of the impugned
trademark SOHUMEMPORIO by the defendants is evidently
dishonest, malafide and fraudulent in nature. The defendants have
appropriated the same in order to confuse and deceive the
consumers, traders, and public at large and for monetary benefit.
The consumers who are familiar with EMPORIO mall of the plaintiff
could reasonably associate EMPORIO mall of the defendants with
the prefix SOHUM as a variation or a branch of the plaintiff's mall

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 9 of 21

EMPORIO in a different state, i.e. Assam on account of imperfect
recollection.
14. It is alleged that the trademark used by the defendants, namely
EMPORIO with the prefix 'SOHUM’, is deceptively similar to the
plaintiff's reputed trademark EMPORIO and the same cannot be a
matter of coincidence. The impugned adoption is deliberate and the
defendants ought to be credited with the success that they propose to
achieve by such instrument of deception. The defendants are
conspiring, advertising, and using the impugned trademark
EMPORIO with the prefix SOHUM for its mall, which is deceptively
similar to the mall of the plaintiff, despite the fact that there is no
connection whatsoever between the plaintiff and the defendants’
malls.
15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
plaintiff, it is very clear that the trademark EMPORIO is registered
under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The use of the impugned
trademark EMPORIO with the prefix SOHUM by the defendants is
still phonetically and structurally deceptively similar to the trademark
EMPORIO of the plaintiff and it amounts to infringement of the
plaintiff's registered trademark. The defendants are hence guilty of
infringing the plaintiff's statutory right of exclusive use of the
trademark EMPORIO under Section 29 of the Act. Reliance is placed
on Kedar Nath v. Monga Perfumery & Flour Mills Delhi-6 AIR
1974 Delhi 12 where it was held that the trademark adopted by the
defendant’s Vijay Sudershan is similar to the plaintiff’s trademark
Sudershan.

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 10 of 21

16. The defendants cannot deny that the trademark EMPORIO
enjoys immense goodwill and reputation in the trade and public at
large and the trademark EMPORIO is an extremely well-known one
deserving the highest degree of protection considering that EMPORIO
is a registered trademark for a variety of goods. Therefore, the
unauthorized use of a deceptively similar trademark such as
SOHUMEMPORIO by an unauthorized trader would inevitably lead to
erosion of the distinctiveness of the trademark EMPORIO. There is
no plausible justification, whatsoever for the use of the trademark
EMPORIO with the prefix SOHUM by the defendants with SOHUM
being added to the whole of the plaintiff's trademark EMPORIO.
SOHUMEMPORIO and EMPORIO are deceptively similar when
compared and the adoption and use of the former by the defendants
is malafide.
17. The impugned use of the trademark SOHUMEMPORIO by the
defendants not only constitutes acts of misrepresentation, but also
leads to misappropriation of the goodwill and reputation that vest in
the plaintiff's trademark EMPORIO. It is an attempt by the
defendants to derive benefit from the said goodwill and induce the
customers to identify the mall of the defendants with that of the
plaintiff and enjoy the reputation and goodwill of EMPORIO
unlawfully. The adoption and use of the trademark
SOHUMEMPORIO would inevitably lead to dilution of the
distinctiveness, brand equity, goodwill, and reputation of the plaintiff’s
trademark EMPORIO.

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 11 of 21

 From the material placed on the record, it is clear that that the
use of the impugned trademark EMPORIO with the prefix SOHUM by
the defendants result in blurring. The theory of "dilution by blurring" is
that if one small user can blur the sharp focus of a famous mark to
uniquely signify one source, then another will do so. There will come
a point when significant injury is caused by the cumulative effect, not
just by one user. If the customers or prospective customers seek the
trademark EMPORIO with the prefix SOHUM having no connection
with the plaintiff, a situation would arise where the unique and
distinctive significance of the trade mark EMPORIO to identify and
distinguish the plaintiff's merchandise will be diluted and weakened.
Thus, the use by the defendants of the trademark SOHUMEMPORIO
is absolutely illegal and is detrimental to the rights of the plaintiff. The
trademark EMPORIO is exclusively associated with the plaintiff and
the use thereof by the defendants and their colourable imitation
would result in diminution and whittling away of the value of the
plaintiff's trademark EMPORIO. The public is also likely to make a
connection between the goods and business of the defendants and
that of the plaintiff. This would result in "dilution by blurring" causing
irreparable prejudice, damage and injury to the plaintiff.
18. The test of comparison of the marks side by side is not a sound
one since a purchaser will seldom have the two marks actually before
him when he makes his purchase. The eye is not an accurate
recorder of visual detail and that marks are remembered rather by
general impression or by some significant detail than by any
photographic recollection of the whole. While judging the question as

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 12 of 21

to whether the defendant has infringed the trademark by colourable
imitation of the mark or not, the Court has to consider the overall
impression of the mark in the minds of general public and not by
merely comparing the dissimilarities in the two marks.
19. In K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Sri Ambal & Co., AIR
1970 SC 146, the Supreme Court held that ocular comparison is not
always the decisive test. Resemblance between the two marks must
be considered with reference to the ear as well as to the eye. In this
case, the Registrar held that the sound of “AMBAL” does not so
nearly resemble the sound of “ANDAL” in spite of certain letters being
common to both the marks, as to be likely to cause confusion or
deception. The Registrar thus found that the marks were not
deceptively similar. But on appeal both the Single Judge and
Division Bench found deceptive similarity. The Supreme Court,
dismissed the appeal, and held that there was a striking similarity and
affinity of sound between the word “Andal” and “Ambal” and held that
there was a real danger of confusion between the two marks.
20. In Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna
Pharmaceutical Laboratories AIR 1965 SC 980, it was held in Para
28 that:
“28. The other ground of objection that the findings are
inconsistent really proceeds on an error in appreciating
the basic differences between the causes of action and
right to relief in suits for passing off and for infringement
of a registered trade mark and in equating the essentials
of a passing off action with those in respect of an action
complaining of an infringement of a registered trade
mark. We have already pointed out that the suit by the

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 13 of 21

 respondent complained both of an invasion of a statutory
right under s. 21 in respect of a registered trade mark
and also of a passing off by the use of the same make.
The finding in favour of the appellant to which the
learned Counsel drew our attention was based upon
dissimilarity of the packing in which the goods of the two
parties were vended, the difference in the physical
appearance of the two packets by reason of the variation
in their colour and other features and their general get-up
together with the circumstance that the name and
address of the manufactory of the appellant was
prominently displayed on his packets and these features
were all set out for negativing the respondent's claim that
the appellant had passed off his goods as those of the
respondent. These matters which are of the essence of
the cause of action for relief on the ground of passing off
play but a limited role in an action for infringement of a
registered trade mark by the registered proprietor who
has a statutory right to that mark and who has a statutory
remedy in the event of the use by another of that mark or
a colourable limitation thereof. While an action for
passing off is a Common Law remedy being in
substance an action for deceit, that is, a passing off by a
person of his own goods as those of another, that is not
the gist of an action for infringement. The action for
infringement is a statutory remedy conferred on the
registered proprietor of a registered trade mark for the
vindication of the exclusive right to the use of the trade
mark in relation to those goods (Vide s. 21 of the Act).
The use by the defendant of the trade mark of the
plaintiff is not essential in an action for passing off, but is
the sine qua non in the case of an action for
infringement. No doubt, where the evidence in respect of
passing off consists merely of the colourable use of a
registered trade mark, the essential features of both the
actions might coincide in the sense that what would be a
colourable limitation of a trade mark in a passing off
action would also be such in an action for infringement of

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 14 of 21

 the same trade mark. But there the correspondence
between the two ceases. In an action for infringement,
the plaintiff must, no doubt, make out that use of the
defendant's mark is likely to deceive, but were the
similarity between the plaintiff's and the defendant's mark
is so close either visually, phonetically or otherwise and
the court reaches the conclusion that there is an
limitation, no further evidence is required to establish that
the plaintiff's rights are violated. Expressed in another
way, if the essential features of the trade mark of the
plaintiff have 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 his goods
for sale show marked differences, or indicate clearly a
trade origin different from that of the registered proprietor
of the make would be immaterial; whereas in the case of
passing off, the defendant may escape liability if he can
show that the added matter is sufficient to distinguish his
goods from those of the plaintiff.”

21. This concept of goodwill and the insistence of localized

business has been traditional concept of passing off which
sometimes is called as classic case of passing off. However, this
concept of passing off has undergone changes due to advent of
technology and modernization. For the said reason the tendency to
insist localized goodwill has been transformed into proving reputation
of a global character. All this would mean that courts entertaining the
case of passing off can discount the localized existence of goodwill
and the business in the territory specific if the substantial nature of
reputation has been proved which has some kind of nexus in the
territory where the protection is sought and the said concept in the
modern language is called trans-border reputation whereas the

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 15 of 21

goodwill is always local in character, the concept of reputation is
dynamic and is all encompassing. The reputation of a person can
transcend boundaries by virtue of its advertisement in the
newspapers, media circulation, expatriate reputation due to cultural
akin ness and all other relevant factors which connect one countries
business with that of another. This has been aptly explained by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of N.R.Dongre v. Whirlpool
Corporation, AIR 1995 Delhi 300 wherein the S. Jagannath Rao, J.
speaking for the Bench has approved the concept of trans-border
reputation in the following words:-
“(25) Thus a product and its trade name transcend the
physical boundaries of a geographical region and acquire a
trans border or overseas or extraterritorial reputation not
only though import of goods but also by its advertisement.
The knowledge and the awareness of the goods of a
foreign trade and its trade mark can be available at a place
where goods are not being marketed and consequently not
being used. The manner in which or the source from which
the knowledge has been acquired is immaterial.”

22. The test of confusion and deception in order to prove the

case of passing off has been very well discussed in the case of
Laxmikant V. Patel vs. Chetanbhai Shah And Another, a judgment
delivered by the Supreme Court, reported in (2002) 3 SCC 65,
wherein the Apex Court while considering a plea of passing off and
grant of ad interim injunction held in no uncertain terms that a person
may sell his goods or deliver his services under a trading name or
style which, with the passage of time, may acquire a reputation or
goodwill and may become a property to be protected by the Courts. It

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 16 of 21

was held that a competitor initiating sale of goods or services in the
same name or by imitating that name causes injury to the business of
one who has the property in that name. It was held that honesty and
fair play are and ought to be the basic policy in the world of business
and when a person adopts or intends to adopt a name which already
belongs to someone else, it results in confusion, has the propensity
of diverting the customers and clients of someone else to himself and
thereby resulting in injury. It was held that the principles which apply
to trade mark are applicable to trade name also. Relevant para 10 of
the aforesaid judgment reads as under:-
“The law does not permit any one to carry on his
business in such a way as would persuade the
customers or clients in believing that his goods or
services belonging to someone else are his or are
associated therewith. It does not matter whether the
latter person does so fraudulently or otherwise. The
reasons are two. Firstly, honesty and fair play are, and
ought to be, the basic policies in the world of business.
Secondly, when a person adopts or intends to adopt a
name in connection with his business or services which
already belongs to someone else it results in confusion
and has propensity of diverting the customers and clients
of someone else to himself and thereby resulting in
injury.”
In this case, the Apex Court further observed that:

“Where there is probability of confusion in business, an

injunction will be granted even though the defendants
adopted the name innocently.”
23. In another case of passing off, a Division Bench of this Court in
the case of B.K.Engineering Co. vs. Ubhi Enterprises and Anr.,

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 17 of 21

reported in 1985 PTC 1, in para 57 inter alia held that trading must
not only be honest but must not even unintentionally be unfair.
24. Thus, it appears to the Court that the plaintiff has made a
strong case of passing off in its favour. In case the defendants are
allowed to use the similar name, it would amount to passing off their
business and services as that of the plaintiff. No justification has been
given by the defendants to use similar name. It appears that the
defendants were aware about the name, goodwill and reputation of
the plaintiff’s name EMPORIO at the time of its adoption. Thus, such
user by the defendants is tainted and dishonest.
25. Earlier the plaintiff has taken actions against the unauthorized
use of its registered trademark EMPORIO and had also instituted
civil suit against third party using CITY EMPORIO for mall. This
Court in CS (OS) No. 2040 of 2011 granted injunction in favour of
the plaintiff restraining the other party from using the trade mark
CITY EMPORIO or any other trademark which may be deceptively
similar to the plaintiff's trademark EMPORIO and the suit was
disposed of in favour of the plaintiff.
26. The jurisdiction in the suit has been invoked by the plaintiff to
entertain and try the present suit under the provisions of Section
134 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 since the plaintiff is carrying on
business at Delhi and within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
The cause of action has also arisen within the local limits of this
Court as the defendants are propagating their business and
advertising their mall through sponsored articles in newspaper
including the newspaper The Telegraph (Calcutta Edition) having

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 18 of 21

circulation in Delhi apart from sponsoring articles in e-newspapers
which can be accessed from the local limits of this Court. The
defendants are evidently targeting the public at large located at
Delhi and promoting their mall and business for economic gains.
27. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of
prayers (a) and (b) of para 30 of the plaint, thereby injunction
restraining the defendants, their directors or assigns in business,
franchisees, licensee, distributors and agents from using the
impugned trade mark SOHUM EMPORIO either upon the mall, its
website or in the course of the trade in advertising, selling, offering for
sale, directly or indirectly dealing in real estate business or any other
products as may be identical to or deceptively similar with the
plaintiff's registered trademarks EMPORIO amounting to infringement
of plaintiff's registered trade mark as enunciated in the plaint and
passing off their business as that of the plaintiff.
Punitive damages

28. With regard to the relief of damages as claimed by the plaintiff

in para 30(d) of the plaint, this Court has previously granted both
exemplary and punitive damages against the defendants in ex-parte
matters of similar nature. In Time Incorporated Vs. Lokesh
Srivastava & Anr., 2005 (30) PTC 3 (Del.) while awarding punitive
damages of Rs. 5 lakhs in addition to compensatory damages also of
Rs. 5 lakhs, Justice R.C. Chopra observed that “time has come when
the Courts dealing in actions for infringement of trademarks,
copyrights, patents etc., should not only grant compensatory

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 19 of 21

damages but also award punitive damages with a view to discourage
and dishearten law breakers who indulge in violation with impunity
out of lust for money, so that they realise that in case they are
caught, they would be liable not only to reimburse the aggrieved party
but would be liable to pay punitive damages also, which may spell
financial disaster for them.”

29. Further, this Court in Microsoft Corporation Vs. Rajendra

Pawar & Anr., 2008 (36) PTC 697 (Del.) decided on 27th July, 2007
has held “Perhaps it has now become a trend of sorts, especially in
matters pertaining to passing off, for the defending party to evade
court proceedings in a systematic attempt to jettison the relief sought
by the plaintiff. Such flagrancy of the Defendant’s conduct is strictly
deprecatory, and those who recklessly indulge in such shenanigans
must do so at their peril, for it is now an inherited wisdom that
evasion of court proceedings does not de facto tantamount to escape
from liability. Judicial process has its own way of bringing to tasks
such erring parties whilst at the same time ensuring that the
aggrieved party who has knocked the doors of the court in
anticipation of justice is afforded with adequate relief, both in law and
in equity. It is here that the concept of awarding punitive damages
comes into perspective.”

30. In view of the facts of the present case, this Court is of the
opinion that in the present case Rs.2 lac as punitive damages be
granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in terms
of para 30(d) of the plaint. Ordered accordingly.

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 20 of 21

31. The other reliefs are not pressed by the plaintiff. The same are
accordingly rejected.
32. Decree be drawn accordingly.

(MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 28, 2015

CS (OS) No.1236/2012 Page 21 of 21