The suit has been filed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the plaintiff's registered Trademark, "UniverCell" and using very mark similar, deceiptively/phonetically similar to that of the SAID MARK "UniverCell" and also for damages. The defendant remained ex-parte.
2. The fact of the case are as follows:-
The plaintiff is engaged in business selling authentic branded mobile phones, sim cards, recharge cards and other accessories etc., and registered owner of the trademark "UniverCell". The plaintiff is one of the largest retailers for branded mobile phones and accessories in India with over 300 stores. The plaintiff recently came to know that the defendant is carrying an identical business of the plaintiff with a name and style "VR UniverCell" which is deceptively/phonetically similar to plaintiff's trademark. The defendant is interfering with the legitimate right of the plaintiff to carry on business. The plaintiff is using the "SAID MARK" from 14th November 1997. Since there is an infringement, the plaintiff has no other option except to file the suit.
3. The Defendant is set ex-parte.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the plaintiff is using a registered trademark " UniverCell" and therefore he is entitled for injunction. However the counsel for the plaintiff fairly accepted that there is no evidence to claim damages. Hence, he has given up the relief of damages. The plaintiff's Power Agent was examined as PW1 and in his evidence, he has stated about the nature of business conducted by the plaintiff and the registered trademark "UniverCell". His evidence also really indicates that the plaintiff is carrying on the business in the said trade mark all over India and using the mark ever since 14.11.1997 and the evidence of the PW1 remains unchallenged. Therefore, it can be relied upon. The Power of Attorney of the plaintiff is marked as Ex.P.1. Ex.P2 is the attested copy of the registered trademark in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's "UniverCell" trademark has been registered on 23.02.2007. Ex.P3 is the Tamil daily newspaper namely Dinakaran, dated 19.03.2011 indicating about the defendant's shop namely "VR UniverCell". Ex.P.4 is the photograph of the defendant's shop. Ex.P.5 is the receipt N.Sathish Kumar, J., dpq issued by the defendant clearly indicates that a business is being run in the name of "VR UniverCell". Ex.P.6 is the carry bag of the defendant also shows the fact that the defendant is also using similar trademark, which is deceptively/phonetically similar to that of the mark of the plaintiff. From the evidence, it can be easily seen that defendant is interfering with the trademark of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff having been used a registered trademark is certainly entitled to permanent injunction restraining the defendant, as prayed for. As far as the claim for damages is concerned, there is no evidence to bring the quantum of the damages. Hence, the same cannot be granted by this Court.
6. Accordingly, the suit is decreed as prayed for with regard to the relief of clause (a). With costs.
05.01.2017 Index: Yes/No Internet:Yes/No dpq C.S.No.598 of 2011 http://www.judis.nic.in