Delhi High Court Passes Summary Judgment In Tata Power’s Trademark Infringement Suit, Grants Dynamic Injunction Against John Doe Entity
The Delhi High Court recently passed summary judgment in favour of Tata Power in a suit filed against infringement of its trademarks, including Tata Power Solaroof and Tata Power EZ Charge.
Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora also granted dynamic injunction and permitted the company to implead and seek relief against any other John Doe entity found infringing its marks.
Tata filed the suit against 18 infringing entities. The Court had in November 2024 granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in the matter.
While Tata claimed that Defendant Nos. 2 to 17 (except Defendant Nos.10 and 13) had complied with the Court’s order and the reliefs against them stood satisfied, it submitted that many innocent persons were being duped by the Defendant No.1 (John Doe) and Defendant No.18 on the pretext of providing Tata’s services/ dealerships.
Tata thus sought a permanent injunction restraining infringement of its trademark, passing off and unfair trade competition.
Significant to note that the two defendants failed to enter appearance or file a written statement in the matter. No valid contact number was available for serving Defendant No.1 and service on Defendant No.18 was duly affected but none appeared.
In of the above, the High Court was of the view that all averments made in Tata’s plaint have to be taken to be admitted.
Further, since no affidavit of admission/denial was filed on behalf of the Defendants, in terms of Rule 3 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, the same were deemed to have been admitted.
“Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no purpose would be served by directing the Plaintiffs to lead ex-parte evidence by filing an affidavit of examination-in-chief and the Plaintiffs are entitled to a summary judgment,” the Court said.
It then noted that the impugned domain name and email address used by the Defendant No. 18 makes it apparent that the said Defendant No. 18 has “slavishly copied” Tata’s registered and well-reputed trademarks.
As such, the Court held that a clear case of infringement of trademarks and passing off is made out against the Defendants.
It thus passed a decree of permanent injunction in favour of Tata and against Defendant Nos.1 and 18 and disposed of the suit.
Appearance: Mr. PEEYOOH KALRA with Mr. Ca Brijesh, Mr. Krisna Gambhir, Advocates for Tata
Case title: Tata Power Renewable Energy Limited & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar/S & Ors.
Case no.: CS(COMM) 1015/2024