CS(COMM) 909/2024 $~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 909/2024 & I.A. 42484/2024 VISHNU AND COMPANY TRADEMARKS PVT LTD .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Manish Biala and Mr. Devesh Ratan, Advocates. versus MR. DHARMANI PATEL @ DHARMANI DENI & ORS. .....Defendants Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 09.04.2025 1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from infringing the trademark of plaintiff, along with other ancillary reliefs. 2. The plaintiff is the proprietor of the “VIMAL” family of trademarks. Since 1986, the plaintiff has been engaged in the business of chewing tobacco, pan masala, zarda, gutkha, khaini, silver coated elaichi, kesar, scented and sweet supari, mouth fresheners etc. under the “VIMAL” family of trademarks. The relevant trademark applications/registrations of the plaintiff company for the mark “VIMAL” are given in paragraph 5 of the plaint. 3. It is stated that the popularity and well-known status of plaintiff’s “VIMAL” trademark is established by the fact that the fees received by the plaintiff from its licensees to conduct business under the “VIMAL” trademark has reached several crores in the past few years. The details of the revenue This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/04/2025 at 12:46:59 CS(COMM) 909/2024 earned by the plaintiff for its products under the trademark “VIMAL” for the past several years are mentioned in paragraph 8 of the plaint. 4. In August 2024, the plaintiff came to know from its distributors and retailers in Delhi that there are 3 websites which are being run, showcasing the products of plaintiff under the trademark “VIMAL”, and misrepresenting to the public at large that the same are being run by the plaintiff. 5. It is stated that the said websites claim that “VIMAL PAN MASALA COMPANY” was started by the defendant no.1 as ‘owner’ and defendant no.2 as ‘Marketing Head’. Further, the name of defendants no.3 and 4 was also mentioned on the websites for contact purposes. The defendant no.5 is a DNR of one of the said websites. 6. Summons in the present suit was issued on 18th October, 2024 and on the same date, the Predecessor Bench granted an ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no.1 to 9. 7. Despite service on 14th November, 2024, the defendants no.1 to 5 have not entered appearance in the matter. 8. Vide order dated 20th March, 2025, the present suit has already been decreed qua defendant no. 6. In the same order, the right of defendants no.1 to 5 to file written statement was closed and they were proceeded against ex- parte. 9. In view of the above, Mr. Manish Biala, counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff would be satisfied if a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 1 to 5. 10. In view of the fact that no written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendants no.1 to 5, all the averments made in the plaint have to be taken This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/04/2025 at 12:46:59 CS(COMM) 909/2024 to be admitted. Further, since no affidavit of admission/denial has been filed on behalf of the defendants no.1 to 5 in respect of the documents filed with the plaint, in terms of Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules 2018, the same are deemed to have been admitted. Therefore, in my opinion, this suit does not merit trial and the suit is capable of being decreed in terms of Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC. 11. Since there is no contest to the present suit, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants no. 1 to 5 in terms of prayer clauses 38 (i) and 38 (ii) of the suit. 12. Counsel for the plaintiff does not press for the remaining reliefs. 13. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. AMIT BANSAL, J APRIL 9, 2025/kd This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/04/2025 at 12:46:59