Arctic
Invent
Case Registry
Dashboard
Case Explorer
Back to Explorer
Update Case Entry
Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.
Case Lawsuit Title
*
Case / Trial ID Number
Jurisdiction Code
*
us
in
upc
eu
Category
*
Patent
Trademark
Copyright
Design
Filing Date
Decision Verdict Date
Court / Tribunal
Bench / Panel Judges
Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)
M/S Pk Industries
Respondent / Defendant
M/S Rg Associates
Dispute Summary
The Delhi District Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff, M/S Pk Industries, against the defendant, M/S Rg Associates, for infringing the plaintiff's registered trademark 'PARAMHANS'. The court also awarded damages of Rs.10,00,000/- to the plaintiff. The defendant had applied for a similar trademark 'RGA SHREE PARAM HAN'S' and 'RGA PARAMARSH', which was found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark. The court held that the defendant's actions were likely to cause confusion in the market and dilute the distinctiveness of the plaintiff's mark.
Outcome / Ruling
plaintiff_favorable
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 17 , Cited by 0 ] Delhi District Court M/S Pk Industries vs M/S Rg Associates on 6 July, 2026 IN THE COURT OF SH.SHAILENDER MALIK, DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-02, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI CS (COMM.) 360/2024 CNR No.DLNT010084712024 (1)M/s P.K. Industries Through Mr.Prem Kumar A sole proprietorship firm registered under the provisions of MSME Act, 2006 having its registered address at C-511, Basement DSIIDC, Narela Industrial Area, Delhi-110040. (2)Mr.Prem Kumar An adult Indian resident having his residential address at H.No.518, Pocket-6, Sector B4, DDA Flats, Narela, Delhi-110040. ...Plaintiffs Versus M/s R.G. Associates (through Mr.Gopal Shukla) A proprietorship concern, having its registered office at 4787/34, Summit Market, Phatak Namak, Hauz Qazi, North Delhi-110006. ...Defendant Date of Institution : 07.06.2024 Date of judgment reserved : 02.06.2026 Date of judgment : 06.07.2026 JUDGMENT 1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, delivery up, damages etc. Plaintiff no.1 i.e. P.K. Industries is stated to be a proprietorship firm, ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.1 registered under MSME Act 2006 and plaintiff no.2 Prem Kumar, represents plaintiff no.1 firm and stated to be owner of trade mark in question. It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff is registered owner of trade mark "PARAMHANS" as shown in para 1 of the plaint (1). Plaintiff has been manufacturing and selling their products (all kind of screws including goods of class 06) since its incorporation in 1996 and started operating with the mark "PARAMHANS" and has been selling their product with the above said label to several dealers across India. Plaintiff operates as traditional family business and has highly skill team of professionals. It is stated that presence of the plaintiff in the market can be reflected from the invoices annexed with the plaint which pertain to period from February 1999 to March 2024. 2. It is stated that plaintiff no.1 has generated great amount of sale/ turn over which is more than Rs.5 crores since financial year 2013- 14, in manufacturing and sale of above noted products with the above noted trade mark. While giving details of the turn over of each financial year, in para 7 of the plaint it is mentioned that on account of growing reputation, brand value of trade mark ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.2 with its business, in order to protect its intellectual property and the rights, title and good will of the well known brand, plaintiff applied for registration of above said trade mark in 2008 as per the details given in para 8 of the plaint. It is stated that the above mentioned trade mark was registered on 17.11.2018. Plaintiff has been continuously, extensively using its registered trade mark even prior to its registration, in respect of its business activity of selling and marketing their products with the label as shown above. 3. It is stated in para 9 of the plaint that trade mark "PARAMHANS" comprises of two syllables i.e. "PARAM" and "HANS", it is stated that colour combination of the original mark as shown above is mix of pink in corners and yellow in the middle, blended together, in such a manner that trade mark "PARAMHANS" which distinguish it with plaintiff's products from the products displayed by its competitors in the market. It is stated that trade mark of the plaintiff has become household name for manufacturing of wood brass screws, machines screws, SS screws and other related product and plaintiff's products are known for its quality across India and has attained a great amount of reputation and good will. Plaintiff to strengthen its protection also held copyright registration of original label with colour combination as depicted below : ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.3 Plaintiff's registered trade mark and registered copyright of label not only signifies exclusive ownership but also establish the prior and honest adopter of label design and the trade mark. As such plaintiff stated to have been using the registered trade mark continuously for over 27 years as its trade name and style. 4. It is mentioned in the plaint that on account of reputation, good will of the plaintiff's, somewhere in 2001 defendant approached plaintiff as proposed dealer for the products of plaintiff. Believing on the representations of defendant as correct, plaintiff stated to have agreed to provide goods to defendant for trading. Accordingly invoices were raised by plaintiff upon defendant between 2001 to 2017 when good were supplied to defendant with the above said original trade mark and label. It is stated that business relationship of plaintiffs and defendant continued for about seven years. Even during this period plaintiff stated to have discovered that defendant through Mr.Gopal Shukla had been engaged in unethical, unauthorized replication of plaintiff's products/packaging/ trade dress. Defendant used packaging of plaintiff to sell identical goods. At that time however plaintiff let off defendant by giving oral warning, only to avoid undue litigation and on account of assurance that defendant did not intend to cause wrongful loss upon plaintiff. 5. It is mentioned in the plaint that in year 2017 subsequent to the dissociation of business relation of plaintiff with defendant, it came to the notice that defendant applied for a trade mark application no.4019541 in respect of class 06 of goods for mark "RGA SHREE PARAM HAN'S" ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.4 in 2018. That mark was strikingly similar to the registered mark of the plaintiff "PARAMHANS". Trade Mark Registry in examination report while citing the registered mark of plaintiff "PARAMHANS" having registration no.1712942 in class 06 goods being identical and similar, refused the registration of above said mark of defendant by order dated 25.02.2022. It is alleged that above said conduct of defendant further show his intention to encroach upon the commercial interest and of intellectual property of plaintiff in respect of above mentioned registered trade mark "PARAMHANS" which has traces back to 2008. 6. It is further mentioned in the plaint that defendant in order to cause losses to the plaintiff, somewhere around March 2024 filed a trade mark application of details as given in para 26 of the plaint and are being reproduced herein below : Application no. Trademark Class Date of Application 6026498 6 July 18, 2023 7. It is stated that above said trade mark "RGA PARAMARSH" (mark in question) was registered. It is stated that above said trade mark of the defendant infringes the trade mark of plaintiff as the impugned trade mark of defendant is bound to dilute the distinctiveness of plaintiff's registered/original mark as well as is deceptively similar in trade dress, depiction. In para 30 of the plaint it is mentioned that side by side ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.5 comparison of registered/original trade mark of plaintiff with the impugned trade mark of defendant would make it clear that defendant copied the original mark of plaintiff. Original Mark Impugned Trademark 8. It is stated that detailed analysis of resemblance of original mark of plaintiff with that of defendant's impugned trade mark are that registered trade mark of plaintiff comprises of two syllables out of which suffix "PARAM" is identical in both the marks, the impugned trade mark of defendant is also registered under the same class of goods i.e. class 06, the impugned trade mark of "PARAMARSH" comprises of nine alphabets, out of which eight alphabets are identical, the registered trade mark of plaintiff and of defendant are phonetically and deceptively similar, the registered mark of plaintiff and impugned mark of defendant have the same colour combination for the background i.e. bright yellow in the centre and bright pink towards the edges, moreover the text/font used in ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.6 the packaging bears the same colours and text used for packaging is the similar inscription of "BRASS MACHINE SCREWS". 9. It is stated in plaint that deceptively similar mark of the defendant being continuously used is causing direct impact on the sales of the plaintiff. Moreover because of the striking resemblance of the mark of plaintiff with that of defendant, amounts to unfair trade practice. On account of visual as well as phonetical pronouncements of two marks causes infringement and defendant is passing off its products by causing confusion in the market/among customers to give an impression as if the goods are of plaintiff. 10. In order to address the above said issue, plaintiff stated to have issued cease and desist notice dated 02.05.2024 along with follow up notice dated 21.05.2024, calling upon defendant to cease and desist from manufacturing, selling in the market and to the dealers goods with using impugned trade mark "PARAMARSH" and also to acknowledge the registered trade mark of the plaintiff "PARAMHANS". It is stated that in response to those notices, defendant instead of complying with the lawful demands of the plaintiff, through its lawyer filed a reply dated 28.05.2024, frivolously rejecting the contents raised by the plaintiff. Hence the suit has been filed seeking following prayers : (i) A decree of permanent injunction to restrain defendant, proprietors, distributors, dealers etc. from manufacturing, selling, marketing or dealing in any product, infringing the registered trade mark of ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.7 plaintiff "PARAMHANS" bearing trade mark no.1754368 under class 06 or from infringing the original mark of plaintiff which is deceptively similar to the trade mark/service mark of plaintiff in respect of selling any kinds of screws included in class 06. (ii) Plaintiff further sought decree of permanent injunction to restrain defendant or its associates etc. from passing off the original mark of plaintiff or respective goods in any manner. (iii) Plaintiff has also sought decree of sum of Rs.20 lakhs against defendant as unliquidated damages on account of loss of profits/ opportunities, loss of reputation and good will. (iv) Directing defendant to disclose the particulars of all entities selling its products under the infringing mark as and when directed by plaintiff and to appoint the Court Receiver. (v) Plaintiff further sought decree of rendition of accounts of defendant to declare quantity of goods sold with impugned trade mark or any other deceptively similar trade mark along with corresponding profits derived by the defendant. Written Statement 11. WS has been filed on behalf of defendant no.1, taking an objection therein that plaintiff has not approached this court with clean ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.8 hands and made false averment and suppressed material facts. It is pleaded that trade mark of defendant has already been registered vide registration application no. 6026498, certificate no. 3505682 and valid till 18.07.2023. It is stated that suit of the plaintiff is devoid of any cause of action as the defendant has ensured that no inconvenience is caused to the plaintiff. While denying the case of the plaintiff on merits, it is denied that trade mark of defendant is similar with plaintiff's trade mark. It is stated that no case is made out for relief of injunction/ damages as claimed by plaintiff. It is further denied that defendant had approached plaintiff, it is pleaded that rather plaintiff approached defendant in 2001 to work together as partner on mutual terms and to grow the business together. It is pleaded that as per mutual consent given by plaintiff to defendant, for use of the name on the invoices as a distributor of plaintiff, of mark of "PARAMHANS". 12. It is pleaded as per mutual consent plaintiff approached defendant for file the trade mark "RGA SHREE PARAM HAN'S" and plaintiff promised defendant to provide NOC for registration of the trade mark, however at the time of examination report defendant had to file the reply but due to plaintiff's delay in providing NOC, later plaintiff refused to give the NOC therefore the application of the defendant was refused by Trade Mark Registry as per Section 11 of Trade Mark Act. It is stated that ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.9 thereafter defendant applied for fresh trade mark application "RGA PARAMARSH" as a trade mark, which was approved by Trade Mark Registry vide registration no. 6026498. It is pleaded that said mark is completely different from plaintiff's mark "PARAMHANS". Other averments of the plaint have been denied. It is further pleaded that registered mark of plaintiff "PARAMHANS" and mark of defendant "RGA PARAMARSH" as a whole is completely different from mark of plaintiff. Replication 13. Plaintiffs filed the replication to the WS of defendant no.1, wherein the pleadings of the defendant were controverted, it is stated that defendant has not addressed even the single/submissions either on facts or on law. It is denied that defendant had vast experience of manufacturing, marketing of nut bolts, screws etc. It is pleaded that defendant has not annexed any document to show its market presence since 2021. As against this plaintiff no.1 has market presence since 28 years as plaintiff has leading brand for good brass screws, machine screws etc. It is denied that impugned trade mark of defendant is not similar to plaintiff's trade mark. In para 6 of the replication, plaintiff has enumerated the different reasons/grounds of resemblance/similarity of impugned trade mark of defendant with that of plaintiff. It is pleaded that registration of impugned trade mark of defendant under Section 31 of Trade Mark Act is not conclusive evidence of validity of the mark. It is stated that despite registration of the mark, it is still open with the court to examine the infringement/passing off, particularly when the plaintiff being registered ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.10 proprietor and prior user of registered trade mark has preferential right. It is stated that right of prior user supersedes any subsequent registration. 14. Without prejudice to the pleadings, it is specifically stated that defendant has admitted in its WS regarding prior relationship with plaintiff during the period from 2001 and 2017, perusal of the invoices issued by plaintiff upon defendant, clearly indicate the use of registered trade mark of plaintiff by defendant, this also establish that defendant was well acquainted with products of plaintiff and of trade mark. It is stated that defendant's impugned trade mark is deceptively similar with the trade mark of plaintiff and is bound to dilute the distinctiveness and also to affect the reputation of plaintiff''s registered/original mark. Interim Order 15. It is matter of record that on the basis of pleadings as come on the judicial record, ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 06.02.2025 allowed the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC , observing in para 7 of the order that even if the mark of plaintiff "PARAMHANS" and trade mark of defendant "PARAMARSH" may not be identical in pronunciation, however use of trade dress "PARAMARSH" by defendant on its packaging is near to similar to the packaging of trade mark of plaintiff, therefore defendant was temporarily restrained from using the trade dress "RGA PARAMARSH" in the manner as depicted above, in its packaging. Court however gave liberty to the defendant to use the said trade dress, registered with it on packaging with different colours background by mentioning the words Brass Machine Screws. ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.11 Issues 16. On the basis of pleadings as come on record, following issues were framed on 30.04.2025 : (1)Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its associates and agents etc. from using, selling, marketing the trademark "PARAMHANS" or any other trademark deceptively and confusingly similar to the registered company, as prayed for? OPP (2)Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant etc., from passing off the goods as that of plaintiff's goods, as prayed for? OPP (3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree of rendition of accounts, as prayed for? OPP (4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a final decree of rendition of accounts, as prayed for? OPP (5)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages of Rs.20,00,000 from the defendant? OPP (6)Relief. Evidence 17. On behalf of plaintiffs one witness plaintiff no.2 Prem Kumar has been examined as PW1. Similarly on behalf of defendant one witness DW1 Gopal Shukla has been examined. Submissions 18. I have heard Ms.Parul Panthi, ld. Counsel for plaintiff and Sh.Sagar Shivam Jaiswal, ld. Counsel for defendant. I have also gone through the written submissions filed on behalf of plaintiff as well as defendant along with case law. My findings on each of the issues are as follows : ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.12 Issue No.1 (Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its associates and agents etc. from using, selling, marketing the trademark "PARAMHANS" or any other trademark deceptively and confusingly similar to the registered company, as prayed for?) 19. Onus to proving this issue was obviously on the plaintiff, PW1 in his affidavit of examination in chief has testified all those facts as are stated in the plaint. Shorn of unnecessary details in the evidence of PW1 can be discussed herein. PW1 states that its firm has been selling their products since its incorporation in 1997 and started operating with brand "PARAMHANS". PW1 says that in year 2008 he got the trade mark "PARAMHANS" registered with Registrar of Trade Marks and same was registered on November 17, 2018 vide certificate of registration Ex.PW1/3. As per PW1 the trade mark "PARAMHANS" was being used in packaging material with a peculiar colour combination having yellow colour in the middle and pink in the corners together with embossing of above said trade mark "PARAMHANS". PW1 says that such trade mark with the trade dress was being used in such a manner that it distinguishes plaintiff's product. In this regard PW1 referred to screen shot of plaintiff's product with the trade mark "PARAMHANS" with colour combination as shown in Indian Mart website, the screen shot of which is Ex.PW1/5. PW1 says that in order strengthen the protection over its intellectual ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.13 property, plaintiff no.2 got the original work/label, copy right registered on June 22, 2022 vide certificate Ex.PW1/4. 20. PW1 inter alia testified that on account of good reputation with plaintiff's product, in 2001 defendant approached plaintiff for being a trader of products of plaintiff and PW1 agreed to provide goods to defendant for trading, regarding which invoices were raised as and when goods were supplied from plaintiff to defendant during period from 2001 to 2017 some of the invoices collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/6. PW1 says that defendant has also not disputed in the written statement regarding such business relation with plaintiff and use of products of plaintiff for trading with above said trade mark. Print out of trade mark details of PW1's wife registered trade mark no.1712942 is Ex.PW1/7. 21. PW1 says that defendant Gopal Shukla engaged in unethical and unauthorized replication of products of plaintiff in packaging/trade dress, at that time defendant was let loose with the warning and PW1 disassociated with defendant for business relation any further. PW1 says that in year 2018 defendant applied by application no. 4019541 for registration of trade mark "RGA SHREE PARAM HAN'S" for class 06, which was striking similar to the registered trade mark of plaintiff and therefore Trade Mark Registry in its examination report cited that mark of defendant sought to be registered is similar to mark already registered, as such it refused for registration of above said mark of defendant. Print out of defendant's mark application no.4019541 as downloaded from website ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.14 of Trade Mark Registry is Ex.PW1/8, print out of examination report is Ex.PW1/9 and refusal order dated 25.02.2022 is Ex.PW1/10. 22. Examining the evidence of PW1 as discussed above, in the light of facts arising out of the pleadings, at the outset it can be stated that there are certain facts which are not disputed i.e. (i) plaintiff's trade mark "PARAMHANS" is registered since 2008, is not disputed. Although defendant has taken the plea that said trade mark was registered without any trade dress, fact remains that registration of trade mark of plaintiff "PARAMHANS" is not disputed as defendant has admitted in his WS to that effect in para no.19. (ii) Defendant has not disputed that plaintiff has been using its registered trade mark "PARAMHANS" even prior to the date of registration, as is reflected from para 20 of his WS. (iii) Further defendant has not disputed para 10 of the plaint, when it was claimed by plaintiff that original trade mark "PARAMHANS" of plaintiff was used with a specific colour combinations in it's labels as per the details given in para 10 of the plaint, which is not disputed in the WS as is reflected from corresponding para 21 of WS. 23. (iv) Plaintiff in para 12 of its plaint while depicting the use of trade mark "PARAMHANS" with a particular trade dress/design in its labels, pleaded that plaintiff got the label design registered under Copy right Act. This fact has also not been disputed by defendant in his WS in corresponding para 23. (v) More importantly plaintiff in para 19 and 20 of plaint claimed that defendant got associated with plaintiff no.1 firm as agent/trader for its products somewhere in year 2001 and such business ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.15 relationship continued from year 2001 to 2017. This fact has also not been disputed by defendant in his WS vide corresponding paras 30 and 31 of the WS except to take the plea that it was plaintiff who had approached defendant for such business relations. 24. (vi) Another important aspect which is not disputed rather a matter of record and stated in the plaint in para 25 is that defendant after dissociated with plaintiff as trader, somewhere in year 2018 applied for a trade mark "RGA SHREE PARAM HAN'S" vide application no. 4019541 Ex.PW1/8, which was declined by Trade Mark Registry vide order Ex.PW1/10 on the basis of examination report Ex.PW1/9. These facts are also not disputed in the WS of the defendant in corresponding para 36 wherein it is pleaded that defendant had applied for above mentioned trade mark for registration as plaintiff had assured him for giving NOC for its registration but plaintiff later did not issue NOC and therefore application of defendant was refused as per Section 11 of Trade Mark Act. 25. In the backdrop of such admitted facts arising out of the pleadings, let us now examine the evidence in the light of submissions made at bar. Once the prior use and registration of trade mark "PARAMHANS" with plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/3 is not disputed, it is argued by counsel for the defendant that the mark "PARAMHANS" was registered only as a mark without any trade dress whereas in 2018 when defendant filed TM application for registration of trade mark "RGA SHREE PARAM HAN'S", it applied along with a trade dress. It is submitted that even if such TM application was declined by Trade Mark ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.16 Registry, but the trade dress with peculiar colour combination, in question as adopted by defendant was very much in the knowledge of the plaintiff being in public domain. As such trade dress was being used by defendant since 2018 i.e. prior in time. It is later in year 2022 plaintiff had obtained Copy right registration of same colour combination which was of trade dress of the defendant. It is argued that defendant has already been continuously using the such trade dress since 2018 as it was uploaded on website of Registrar of Trade Mark, with trade mark application no. 4019541. It is submitted that therefore the claim of ownership on such colour combination/trade dress by plaintiff is false and incorrect. 26. Having examined the evidence in the light of such submissions made by ld. Counsel for defendant, this court has already noted above that colour combination/design in which the registered trade mark "PARAMHANS" was being used in the label of the plaintiff as claimed in the plaint, has not been disputed it the pleadings/WS of the defendant. Now even if such admission in pleadings is ignored for the time being, if this court examine the document Ex.PW1/8 i.e. application no. 4019541 of defendant which is also referred to in para 5 of the affidavit of DW1 with same exhibit, nowhere in the said application any colour combination/trade dress has been referred to. Examining Ex.PW1/8 on the face of it does not show that any particular design/colour combination of that mark has been given. Even if any such colour combination/design/ trade dress was uploaded on the website along with application Ex.PW1/8, ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.17 it was for defendant to prove the same, particularly when there is no specific denial in this regard in the pleadings. 27. No doubt in the cross examination of PW1 recorded on 21.07.2025, a document Mark PW1/D2 (colly.) has been put to PW1 to show the coloured photos which was claimed to be part of application for registration of TM Ex.PW1/8. It was for DW1 to prove that photograph as per law in the evidence when he appeared in the witness box as DW1. Mark PW1/D2 is a coloured photograph of a box with trade mark "RGA SHREE PARAM HAN'S" which was marked only and not exhibited. Therefore if the same was uploaded with the Trade Mark Registry, it was to be proved as per law by defendant. As against this if we go through the cross examination of DW1 recorded on 28.07.2025 DW1 has admitted that there is no document on the record to show that he was using colour code Ex.DW1/PA in 2018. 28. Moreover if we examine the application Ex.PW1/8, it mentions in the column of User Details that such mark is "proposed to be used". Thus the application Ex.PW1/8 itself indicates that trade mark was sought to be registered with "proposed to be used". In other words such mark with trade dress if at all uploaded with the application, was never used prior to filing of the application for its registration by defendant. Thus in view of the admitted facts in the pleadings, as well as evidence of PW1 and DW1 as noted above, this court does not find any substance in the argument of ld. Counsel for defendant when it is argued that trade ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.18 dress/design depicting the mark was already being used by defendant even prior to its registration by plaintiff in 2022. 29. Let us now further examine the evidence on judicial record to determine the issue of infringement of registered trade mark of plaintiff "PARAMHANS" vis-a-vis registered mark of defendant "RGA PARAMARSH". Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that mark of plaintiff "PARAMHANS" was registered in year 2008 and defendant tried to imitate the same mark by applying for registration of mark in 2018 as "RGA SHREE PARAM HAN'S", which was refused by Trade Mark Registry. It is submitted that it is undisputed fact that defendant associated with plaintiff as trader from 2001 to 2017, which was duly admitted in the cross examination also, clearly indicating that defendant was aware about the trade mark of the plaintiff being registered. Despite such knowledge of the registered trade mark of plaintiff as well as earlier refusal by the TM Registry, defendant got registered the impugned trade mark "RGA PARAMARSH" only in 2024. It is submitted that plaintiff was prior user of the trade dress with distinctive colour combination, bare glance at the mark of defendant would make it clear that defendant has fraudulently copied the registered mark of the plaintiff not only in style of font, colour combination and overall trade dress which tend to dilute the distinctiveness of registered mark of the plaintiff as well as registered trade dress under Copy Right Act. 30. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff submits that registered trade mark of plaintiff "PARAMHANS" consist of two syllables i.e. "PARAM" ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.19 and "HANS", out of which the word "PARAM" is common in both the mark of plaintiff and defendant. Moreover the colour combination used in plaintiff's registered trade mark being mix of pink and yellow with distinctively depiction of words "BRASS MACHINE SCREW", have been similarly used in the impugned trade mark of the defendant. 31. Counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Renaissance Hotel Holding Inc. vs. B. Vijaya Sai (2022) 5 SCC 1, wherein it was held that use of mark "SAI RENAISSANCE" and "RENAISSANCE" were similar. Reliance has also been placed on judgment in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma vs. Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories (AIR 1965 SC 980), wherein it is held that in an action for infringement, plaintiff is required to make out that use of defendant's mark is likely to deceive, but where similarity between plaintiff's and defendant's mark is either visually, phonetically or otherwise similar. It is submitted that Hon'ble Court in that case came to the conclusion that if there is a imitation of mark of plaintiff in the mark of defendant, no further evidence is required. Counsel for plaintiff has also relied upon judgments of Apex Court in Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. J.P. and Company ( 1972) 1 SCC 618, Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Limited (2001) 5 SCC 73. 32. Ld. Counsel for the defendant on the other hand submits that phonetical expression of word "PARAMHANS" and mark "PARAMARSH", is very much different and does not cause any similarity or deception in any manner. Ld. Counsel for the defendant submits that ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.20 there has been a judicial recognition of this fact in the shape of order dated 06.02.2025, wherein ld. Predecessor of this court had observed that mark "PARAMHANS" and trade mark of defendant "PARAMARSH" are not identical in pronunciation. Ld. Counsel for the defendant further argued that so far as trade dress is concerned, it is admitted by plaintiff in cross examination that at the time of registration of mark of plaintiff it was registered without any trade dress whereas the colour combination used./trade dress on packaging material was being used by defendant prior in time than of plaintiff which plaintiff got registered the same only in 2022 whereas defendant has been using it since 2018. As such it is submitted that there has not been any infringement of the mark. 33. Counsel for the defendant relied upon judgment of Delhi High Court in M/s Ganesh Gouri Industries and ors. vs. R.C. Plasto 2024 DHC 5788 (DB), wherein it was observed that a person cannot claim monopoly on use of colour unless the same has been used in a particular configuration with attended features have acquired secondary meaning or serve as source of identifier requiring protection and registration. Reliance has also been placed on judgment of Delhi High Court in Nolkamal Crates and Containers and ors. vs. Reena Rajpal and ors. 2023 DHC 8087, wherein there was dispute between marks "NILKAMAL" and "NILKRANTI" and it was held that marks are to be seen as a whole and applying the test of Pianotist Co. Ltd. 's case, it was held that words are not deceptively similar. Analysis & Conclusion ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.21 34. Having examined the evidence and in the light of submissions made at bar, let us at the outset remind ourselves about the settled legal proposition. Trade mark infringement is an act statutorily covered, its basic requirement is registration of mark, claim to have been infringed. Proving of infringement requires the trademark owner (plaintiff) to establish that defendant used a mark that is identical or deceptively similar to a registered trademark, causing a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The court evaluates several specific elements to decide trademark infringement such as 'Triple Identity Test' i.e. the court assesses whether an average consumer, exercising ordinary caution, would be confused, deceived, or misled by the infringing mark. The court determines this based on: (a) Similarity in Sound, Sight, and Meaning: How the marks are spelled, pronounced, and visually perceived. (b) Similarity of Goods and Services; (c) Intent of the Defendant i.e. whether evidence on the record indicate that there is intentional copy of the mark in words, expression, colour combination, design and size etc. These tests have been duly identified in the shape of Section 29(1) & (2) of Trade Marks Act 1999. 35. Another test is 'Overall Impression' or Anti-Dissection Rule which means that marks must be compared as a whole, focusing on their overall impression, phonetic sound, and visual appearance. It is settled law that it is not necessary for infringement that impugned trade mark must be absolute copy/replica of the registered trade mark, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cadila Healthcare 's case (supra) has laid down seven ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.22 factors tests for deceptive similarity which are (a) nature of marks i.e. whether words, marks or label marks or composite marks; (b) degree of resemblance between the marks i.e. phonetic similarity or not; (c) nature of goods in respect of which competing marks are being used; (d) similarity in nature, character and performance of goods; (e) class of purchaser who are likely to buy the goods given the degree of exposure, intelligence and education; (f) mode of purchasing the goods/placing the orders; (g) any surrounding circumstances which may be relevant. 36. In this context it must be kept in mind that it need not to be proved that anyone has been actually deceived; one need to only prove that there is a strong likelihood of deception or confusion. Plaintiff however requires to establish that he/ it suffered or are likely to suffer financial or reputational harm due to infringement. Thus distinctiveness of the mark is the fundamental point to be examined. It is the quality that allows a mark to identify the source of goods or services and distinguish them from competitors. Trademarks are evaluated on a sliding scale of distinctiveness, ranging from strongest (inherently unique) to weakest (generic). 37. Keeping in view the above discussion of law, let us examine the facts and evidence of the present case to determine if there is infringement of registered trade mark of plaintiff. It is important to note here that even the mark of defendant is also registered. However still this court as per law can examine if the rival registered marks of plaintiff and defendant causes infringement or not. It is settled law that registration of mark of defendant, is no defence against infringement as it is still within ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.23 domain of this court to check the infringement. At the cost of repetition let us examine certain circumstances one by one. Firstly it came in the evidence of PW1 that plaintiff no.1 firm has been manufacturing, marketing different wood brass screws etc. with mark "PARAMHANS" and said mark was got registered on 17.11.2008 vide Ex.PW1/3. No doubt at the time of its registration said mark was registered with the words only without any colour combination/trade dress. Secondly plaintiff/PW1 deposed in para 8 of his affidavit of examination in chief that his firm started using the said mark with a colour combination of mix of pink in the corners and yellow in the middle, blended in such a manner to emboss the registered mark "PARAMHANS" in between. Such colour combination was being used solely for distinguishing the plaintiff's product from the products of its competitors and registered mark of plaintiff has been inscribed in red colour with description of the product "BRASS MACHINE SCREW". On these facts as stated by PW1, there is no cross examination of PW1 to deny these facts. 38. Thirdly defendant got associated with plaintiff from 2001 to 2017, when plaintiff firm agreed to provide goods to defendant for trading, certain invoices of above said duration issued upon defendant have been proved as Ex.PW1/6. This court has already noted above that this aspect has not been disputed by defendant. Moreover in cross examination of DW1 witness has admitted the copies of invoices at page no.50 to 53, 58, 61 (part of Ex.PW1/2) and invoices collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 were issued by plaintiff pertain to defendant. Defendant further admitted ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.24 in cross examination that he came to know in 2017 that plaintiff has been using mark "PARAMHANS". Fourthly as per evidence of PW1 defendant in 2018 moved application no. 4019541 seeking for registration of mark "RGA SHREE PARAM HAN'S", that application was declined by TM Registry vide refusal order dated 25.02.2022 Ex.PW1/10 on the basis of examination report Ex.PW1/9. Fifthly plaintiff got the colour combination/trade dress of description of its trade mark registered under Copy Right Act on June 22, 2022 vide Ex.PW1/4. Sixthly in 2023 defendant applied for the impugned trade mark "RGA PARAMARSH", which was registered by TM Registry vide Ex.PW1/11. 39. Above said six circumstances as enumerated above, in the opinion of this court assume great importance to decide whether where is any infringement of registered trade mark of plaintiff or not. In the context of above noted facts if we examine the registered trade mark of plaintiff "PARAMHANS" and of defendant "RGA PARAMARSH", no doubt the phonetically mark "PARAMHANS" and "PARAMARSH", are not similar except to the extent that word "PARAM" is common in both the marks. However it is one of the factor and cannot be a sole factor. This can be well examined in the depiction of the mark of plaintiff and impugned mark of defendant as exists, below : ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.25 40. The comparison of above said two marks "PARAMHANS" and "PARAMARSH" in the context of six circumstances noted above, would clearly indicate the intention of the defendant to get the mark "RGA PARAMARSH" registered which becomes deceptively similar to the registered mark of the plaintiff "PARAMHANS", particularly when it is in relation to the same category of goods i.e. brass screws or class 06 goods and also when the colour combination used to describe the mark of defendant "RGA PARAMARSH" is visually, exactly similar to the colour combination in which registered mark of plaintiff has been shown. Thus the similarity of colour combination in which not only font size of the mark of plaintiff and of defendant is similar, even the description of "BRASS MACHINE SCREW" and the colour in which those words have been mentioned is also similar. This court has already concluded in the earlier paras of this judgment that defendant has failed to establish its claim that he has been using the colour combination/trade dress since 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.26 i.e. prior to its registration by plaintiff in 2022. Moreover at the time when such colour combination/trade dress was applied by plaintiff for registration under Copy Right Act, there has not been any opposition from defendant. DW1 in cross examination recorded on 28.07.2025 admitted that he has been using the packaging of "RGA PARAMARSH" (impugned packaging) since April/May 2024 and the application for registration moved 2018 vide Ex.PW1/8 was not in the name of impugned packaging. 41. Thus if the above noted six circumstances and similarity of colour combination, the manner of description of competing marks in between that colour combination and the font size is examined in totality, this court finds that these two competing marks are certainly deceptively similar which tend to cause confusion among the class of customers who are supposed to purchase wood screws, SS crews and class 06 goods. 42. Therefore, on account of the aforesaid observations, it becomes clear that the marks and packaging/trade dress adopted by the defendant, would lead to confusion and deception amongst the consumers. Thus, while discussing the aspect of confusion that can occur with consumers, the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Versus General Mills Marketing Inc., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1953, held as follows: "xxx xxx xxx 39. It is also a settled proposition of law that where products are virtually identical, as they are in the present case, 'the degree of similarity in the marks necessary to support a finding of infringement is less than in the case of dissimilar, non- competing products.' [Eaton Allen Corp. (Supra)] ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.27 xxx xxx xxx 49. Since time immemorial the Supreme Court has consistently sounded a note of caution that the competing marks have to be compared keeping in mind an unwary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection. [ AIR 1963 SC 449 Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta ]. 50. Consumers of any product do not deliberately memorize marks. They only retain a general, indefinite, vague, or even hazy impression of a mark and so may be confused upon encountering a similar mark. Consumers may equate a new mark or experience with one that they have long experienced without making an effort to ascertain whether or not they are the same marks. The consideration therefore is whether one mark may trigger a confused recollection of another mark. Thus, if the marks give the same general impression confusion is likely to occur. 51. With a view to further foster our understanding of the concept of similarity and likelihood of confusion arising in trademark jurisprudence, we may profitably take cue from the analogous principle of 'observability' which is applied in the context of copyright laws. 52. The 'ordinary observer' test is applied to determine if two works are substantially similar. The Court will look to the response of an 'average lay observer' to ascertain whether a copyright holder's original expression is identifiable in the allegedly infringing work 274 F.2d 487 (2nd Cir. 1960) Peter Pan Fabrics Inc. v. Martin Weiner Corp. Since it is employed to determine qualitative and quantitative similarity in visual copyright work, the said test can also be usefully applied in the domain of trademark law as well. 53. The Courts have reiterated that the test for substantial similarity involves viewing the product in question through the eyes of the layman. A layman is not expected to have the same 'hair-splitting' skills as an expert. A punctilious analysis is not necessary. A layman is presumed to have the cognition and experiences of a reasonable man. Therefore, if a reasonable observer is likely to get confused between the two products then a copyright violation is said to take place. ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.28 54. Transposing the said principles in the context of trademark infringement, one may venture to assess similarity and likelihood of confusion between rival marks on the touchstone of the impression gathered by a reasonable observer, who is a layman as opposed to a connoisseur." 43. Moreover, the present case is a clear example, wherein, the Triple Identity Test is satisfied. The marks/trade dress of the parties, are similar. The areas of operation/business are the same, and the target consumers are also similar. Therefore, there is a complete likelihood that deception and confusion will occur with the consumers. Thus, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Heifer Project International Versus Heifer Project India Trust, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2847, held as follows: "xxx xxx xxx 30. Indeed, the present case is a classic instance of 'triple identity.' The Impugned trademarks are nearly identical, as are the areas of operation, and the segments of the public they target. Therefore, the Defendants' use of these nearly identical and deceptively similar marks is certain to cause deception and confusion among the general public. Besides, the Defendants have persistently engaged in activities that unlawfully exploit Plaintiff's reputation and goodwill. Even after the termination of their contractual relationship and the explicit withdrawal of rights to use the Plaintiff's trademarks and logos, Defendants have unauthorisedly continued use of their deceptively similar marks. This defiance not only violates the agreement but also misleads the public and the relevant stakeholders regarding the nature of Defendants' affiliation with Plaintiff. Defendants have further compounded their infringement by falsely representing their relationship with Plaintiff. They have insinuated to the public and stakeholders that they remain affiliated or integrally connected with Plaintiff, thereby undermining Plaintiff's brand/trademark integrity and causing confusion about its unique identity in the marketplace. Defendants lack any legal right or justification to the use of ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.29 contested marks, or applying for their registration of identical marks for conducting any business activities." 44. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned marks/trade dress/packaging used by defendant will cause confusion and deception to any unwary purchaser, especially, qua goods which are easily and readily available on e-commerce platforms, as well. The fact that the products of both the parties are catering to a similar customer base, with a similar trade channel, and on account of the deceptive similarity of defendant's marks/ trade dress, it is in all likelihood that the impugned marks/trade dress of defendant will cause confusion and deception amongst the consumers. Thus, the defendant's marks/trade dress will constitute infringement and passing off of the marks/trade dress of the plaintiff. There is certainly identity of impugned mark with registered mark of plaintiff not only in the description of the mark on the labels but also in respect of goods and services covered by both the competing marks and therefore case would certainly be considered u/s 29(2)(c) of Trade Marks Act 1999. As a consequence thereof a presumption can be drawn in terms of Section 29(3) of the Act that the mark of defendant is likely to cause confusion in the public. 45. Much emphasis has been given by ld. Counsel for the defendant on the observation given by ld. Predecessor of this court in para 7 of order dated 06.02.2025 to argue that the court had earlier observed that words "PARAMHANS" and "PARAMARSH" are not identical or deceptively similar in their pronunciation. This observation however in ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.30 the opinion of this court cannot be of much help to defendant while deciding the issue under consideration. Because as per the legal position discussed above when two competing marks are to be examined in totality, even if there may not be exact phonetical similarity in pronunciation of those two competing marks, still there can be infringement if there is similarity of colour combination, similarity of the class of goods for which marks are being used and importantly the intention of the defendant in the peculiar circumstances as noted above to show that defendant being well aware about the good will attached with the registered mark of the plaintiff, tried to take commercial benefits of that mark of plaintiff by making a faint attempt earlier to get a mark registered which was exactly similar to the mark of plaintiff. Upon getting refusal for the same from TM Registry, defendant came up with another mark which had the similarities as noted above. Thus this court concludes that there is an infringement in terms of Section 29 of Trade Marks Act. 46. Coming now to the judgments as relied upon by counsel for the defendant. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon'ble DB of Delhi High Court in M/s Ganesh Gouri Industries and ors. (supra) wherein there was a dispute between mark "AQUA PLAST" "GOURI AQUA PLAST" on one hand and defendant's mark "PLASTO", marks with the exact description with colour have been reproduced in para 11 of the judgment. In the facts and circumstances of that case, in the light of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, Hon'ble Court in para 62 observed "...the very fact that impugned marks are being used on similar type of ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.31 goods is not sufficient to presume that there is a likelihood of confusion unless the marks are identical or similar...". Reliance has also been placed on observation given in para 78 and 79 of the judgment when it was observed "...a person cannot claim on monopoly of colour unless the same is used in particular configuration with attended features has acquired secondary meaning and serve as a source identifier for purpose of protection and registration...". 47. Having examined the dictum laid down in the above said judgment, rather it reiterate the legal position already noted above in the judgment. The facts of that case are distinguishable to the fact that two rival marks had no similarity in the colour combination or manner in which the marks have been described and shown, therefore the said judgment cannot be of any help in the peculiar circumstances of the present case. So far as the observation in para 62 and 78 are concerned, there can hardly be any denial for the same. There can be no monopoly for use of colour combination in description of mark, however it is observed in para 78 itself that if colour combination has been used in a particular configuration and attended features, which is even registered in the present case under Copy Right Act, use of such colour combination in the similar manner, certainly causes infringement. 48. Another judgment relied upon by counsel for the defendant is in Nilkamal Crates' case (supra) wherein there was a dispute with regard to mark of plaintiff "Nilkamal" and "Nilkranti", the description of the competing marks in that case was found to be not similar, therefore facts of ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.32 that case were altogether different that the facts of the present case noted above. 49. Thus in view of the above said discussion, this court concludes that plaintiff has been able to establish that trade mark of defendant "RGA PARAMARSH" is deceptively and confusingly similar to the registered trade mark of plaintiff "PARAMHANS" and thereby causing infringement in terms of Section 29 of T.M. Act. Issue no.1 accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff. Issue No.2 (Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree of permanent injunction restraining defendant etc., from passing off the goods as that of plaintiff's goods, as prayed for?) 50. For relief of 'passing off' which is a common law remedy, an owner of unregistered mark can sue competitor by proving that the mark of the plaintiff has acquired a distinct reputation and due to prior use, reputation it has established a distinctiveness among the customers in relation to the class of goods. For establishing passing off plaintiff has to establish that defendant use of similar mark or trade dress i.e. packaging, lay out or colours etc., is in such a manner that it would mislead the public in believing their product to be associated with the distinctive mark of plaintiff and thereby causing damages. Thus the only difference between the relief for infringement and for passing off is that mark in question of plaintiff is registered in case of infringement, whereas such necessity is not there when relief has been sought in respect of passing off. However plaintiff is required to show prior use of the mark and the association with ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.33 the mark which has attained distinctiveness in respect of the product sold by plaintiff vis-a-vis the product being sold by defendant with the impugned mark. 51. In the facts of the present case, this court has elaborately examined the competing marks of plaintiff and of defendant respectively and has already concluded while deciding the issue no.1 that plaintiff has established the registration of mark "PARAMHANS" along with registration of his packaging/colour combination/trade dress under Copy Right Act and the impugned mark of defendant was found to be deceptively similar, in the light of evidence and the legal tests evolved by different precedents. In view of the findings on issue no.1, no further discussion is warranted and therefore issue no.2 stands also decided in favour of plaintiff and it is decided that plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for. Issue No.3 (Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree of rendition of accounts, as prayed for?) 52. Relief of preliminary decree of giving directions to the defendant for rendition of accounts, as prayed by the plaintiff in the present suit, cannot be granted in every possible case. In terms of Order 20 rule 16 CPC court grants relief of rendition of account, generally when the parties stand in fiduciary relationship, whereby plaintiff proves that he has a legal, statutory right and defendant has a fiduciary duty to render the accounts to the plaintiff such as relationship of principal and agent, ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.34 partnership etc. In the present case however there is no such fiduciary relationship existing between plaintiff and defendant. 53. No doubt this court has already concluded while deciding issue no.1 and 2 that there has been an infringement of trade mark of plaintiff, this conclusion however does not give any vested right in favour of plaintiff to seek relief of rendition of account. Particularly in the facts of the present case where ld. Predecessor of this court, while deciding the application under Order 39 and Rules 1 & 2 CPC has not completely restrained the defendant from using the mark in question. As such it is decided that no directions can be given to defendant in the facts of the present case by way of preliminary decree to render the accounts, in view of the provisions of Order 20 Rule 16 CPC as well as in view of the legal principles laid down in the judgment of Apex Court in K.C. Sakaria vs. State of Kerala (Civil Appeal No.6885/2003 decided on 10.01.2006). Issue accordingly decided against the plaintiff. Issue No.4 (Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a final decree of rendition of accounts, as prayed for?) 54. In view of findings on issue no.3, this issue also stands decided against the plaintiff. Issue No.5 (Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of damages of Rs.20,00,000 from the defendant?) 55. Onus of proving this issue was on plaintiff. Question of assessing the damages, in case of infringement/passing off under the trade mark law involve taking of concrete evidence from plaintiff which gives ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.35 proof for the court for evaluating the damages caused. Obviously the question of awarding damages cannot involve undue enrichment for plaintiff or undue loss for defendant. The idea of awarding damages is with the objective to restore the plaintiff to the exact position where he would have been had there been no infringement. Therefore the question of damages depends upon plaintiff's actual loss, infringer's unjust profit. In that process court is also required to assess different factors including the proof of duration of infringement, intent and brand reputation. Question of damages therefore cannot be left on whims, discretion of the court without any basis. Judicial discretion has to be exercised for awarding the damages on the basis of some material on the judicial record. 56. On the question of computement of damages, ld. Counsel for plaintiff has relied upon judgment of Delhi High Court in Oxygon Health Pvt. Ltd. vs. Penumo Care Health Pvt. Ltd. And ors. (decided on 13.05.2025), Dev Darshan Dhoop Industries and ors. vs. Adhyatmik Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (decided on 18.05.2025), wherein it is held that even in the absence of any evidence to the effect of loss caused, a party is entitled to nominal damages as long as plaintiff is able to prove that injury caused to the plaintiff was due to wrongful conduct of defendant. 57. Keeping in view the above discussed legal proposition and the evidence of PW1, wherein particularly it is established that plaintiff has been using the trade mark registered with it since 2008 and even defendant has also been associated with the plaintiff as is reflected from invoices Ex.PW1/6, moreover evidence of PW1 remained unrebutted on the ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.36 question of annual turn over of the plaintiff no.1 firm, this court finds that on the basis of such material on the judicial record as well as in view of findings already given on issue no.1, plaintiff firm is entitled for damages to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- on notional basis. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the judgment of Apex Court in Citizen Watch Company Limited vs. Dinesh Kumar Laxman Bhai Virada (2024) SCC OnLine Del. 4130, wherein also nominal damages to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs was awarded in favour of plaintiff and against defendant who was found guilty of infringement. Reference can also be given judgment in Hindustan Uniliver Limited vs. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited (RFA (OS ) 50/2008 decided on 31.01.2014). Issue accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff. Relief 58. Keeping in view findings on issue no.1, 2 and 5, suit is decreed with the observations as : (i) Plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction whereby defendant themselves, their proprietors, partners, distributors, dealers, retailers, agents or any other person acting on behalf of defendant, are hereby restrained from manufacturing, selling, marketing, advertising directly or indirectly or in any manner dealing in any product which infringes the registered trade mark of plaintiff "PARAMHANS" bearing trade mark no. 1754368 under class 06 or from infringing the original mark of the plaintiff ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.37 "PARAMHANS", which is deceptively similar to the mark of plaintiff. (ii) Defendants are further restrained from selling, marketing, offering to sell directly or indirectly any product which amounts to passing off of registered trade mark of plaintiff "PARAMHANS" bearing trade mark no. 1754368 under class 06, which in any manner give an impression to be product of plaintiff and tend to cause confusion in the market in respect of above category of class of goods. As a necessary consequence defendants are further directed to remove the products with impugned trade mark in any manner including trade indica from the website, marketing material, advertisements etc. (iii) Plaintiff is further entitled for decree of recovery of sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from defendant towards damages. 59. Suit stands decree with costs. Decree sheet be accordingly prepared. 60. After due compliance, file be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court (Shailender Malik) on 06.07.2026 District Judge (Commercial)-02 North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi Digitally signed SHELENDER by SHELENDER MALIK MALIK Date: 2026.07.06 11:02:35 +0530 ______________________________________________________________________ P.K. Industries vs. R.G. Associates Page No.38
Cancel
Update Case