Delhi High Court has issued orders to pay Rs 15 lakhs monetary damages to the owner of trademark ‘BOAT’ after Court-appointed Local Commissioners seized counterfeit products.
Justice Pratibha M Singh opined that Defendants had blatantly infringed the trademark, logos and also the packaging of the plaintiff’s products.
Taking note of the seizure of counterfeit products, the High Court decreed the suit against Defendant no. 1 and Defendant no. 6.
In the order, the bench stated, “Insofar as the relief of damages as sought in paragraph 30(f) is concerned, it is clear to this Court that the Defendants have blatantly infringed the trademark and logos as also the packaging of the Plaintiff’s products. Considering the quantum of counterfeit products which was seized from Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.6, the suit is decreed against the Defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, and against the Defendant No. 6 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs. Since no products were found in the premises of Defendant No.3, no monetary damages are being imposed on the said Defendant.”
The court has directed the Defendants to submit the amount within two weeks.
As no counterfeit products were seized from the premises of Defendant no. 3, no monetary damages were imposed on it.
The suit was filed by Imagine Marketing Private Limited in connection to the use of the trademark ‘BOAT’ which was used in various electronic gadgets such as earphones, headphones, speakers, sound bars, travel chargers, premium rugged cables, etc.
The plaintiff, Imagine Marketing Pvt Ltd, submitted that it owns the trademark ‘BOAT’ and also has rights in the logo ‘BOAT’, stated to be an original artistic work in respect of the manner in which ‘BOAT’ is written.
The court had appointed Local Commissioners to seize the counterfeit products on December 24, 2020.
“From the Local Commissioners’ reports, and the pleadings on record it is clear that the Defendants are engaged in manufacturing or selling or offering for sale various electronic or electric products bearing the mark ‘BOAT’ as also the logos thereof. The Defendants choose not to appear despite having knowledge of the proceedings which are pending before this Court. The Local Commissioners’ reports along with the evidence there of also clearly reveals that the Defendant Nos.1 and 6 were engaged in the sale of counterfeit products,” the bench noted.
