,
(ii) An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners or proprietors, as the case may be, its officers, servants",
and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, supplying, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any business",
unauthorisedly using the Plaintiffs' well-known trademarks TATA and and amounting to infringement of the Plaintiffs' registered,
copyright nos. A-58315/2001, A-58313/2001, A-58314/2001 and A-58312/2001, the details of which are given at serial no. 13 (at pages",
198 to 205), of the list of documents filed along with the instant suit; and",
(iii) An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners or proprietors, as the case may be, its officers, servants",
and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, supplying, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in any business",
unauthorisedly using the Plaintiffs' well-known trademarks TATA and and and/or any mark(s) confusingly or,
deceptively similar to the said marks amounting to passing off of the Defendants' services / goods as that of the Plaintiffs'; and,
(iv) An order of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants or their agents, or any other person acting for and on its behalf etc. from",
engaging in any act whatsoever that will result in the dilution and tarnishment of the Plaintiffs' well-known trademarks TATA and,
and ; and,
(v) For an order of permanent injunction directing the Defendants to immediately stop using and to take down all references to the,
Plaintiffs' well-known trademarks TATA and and from its website, Facebook, Instagram and other online platforms as",
well as from the physical hoardings of the Defendants; and,
(vi) An order for delivery up of all the goods bearing the impugned mark/device, dies, blocks, cartons, labels, carry bags, hoardings,",
promotional literature and any other infringing material to the authorized representatives of the Plaintiffs for the purposes of destruction;,
and,
(vii) An order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the Defendants on account of the misuse of the Plaintiffs' well-known,
trademarks TATA and and and / or any deceptively similar mark/name thereto and a decree for the amount so found be,
passed in favour of the Plaintiffs; and,
(viii) An order for damages in the sum of Rs. 2 crores in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants on account of the unauthorized,
use of the impugned mark/name/device and a decree for the said amount be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs; and,
(ix) An order for costs of the proceedings against the Defendants and in favour of the Plaintiffsâ€,
10. After hearing the parties on 24.02.2021, this Court passed an ad-interim injunction against Defendants No.1 and 2 in terms of prayers (i) to (iii) of",
I.A. No.2415/2021. On 15.03.2021, learned counsel for the Defendants stated before the Court that except for one hoarding and advertisement on its",
Instagram and twitter accounts, reference to the Plaintiffs’ logo and trademark had been removed from all other sites and it was undertaken that",
representation shall be removed from the lone remaining hoarding before the next date of hearing.,
11. Subsequently the Instagram accounts of Defendants No.1 and 2 were deleted and the offending marks were also removed from the twitter,
accounts. Vide order dated 07.01.2022, right of the Defendants to file written statement was closed.",
12. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs contends that issues have not been framed in the matter and Defendants have admittedly no defence,
whatsoever and therefore there is no real prospect of successfully defending the claim. In any case, Defendants have removed the offending marks",
and therefore the Plaintiffs are entitled to a summary judgment without proceeding to frame issues and record evidence. Plaintiffs rely on the,
following judgments to support their claim for a summary judgment :-,
(a) Ahuja Radios vs A Karim, CS(COMM) No. 35 of 2017 â€" Order Dated 01.05.2017, Para 5",
(b) Ambawatta Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. Vs Imperia Structure Ltd. & Ors., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8657, Para 39",
(c) Bright Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs MJ Bizcraft LLP, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 6394, Para 21",
(d) Jindal Saw Limited vs Aperam Stainless Services, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9163, Para 25,26",
(e) Kaamdhenu Ltd. vs Aashiana Rolling Mills, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2426, Para 34,36,49",
(f) KR Impex vs Punj Lloyd, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6667, Para 28",
(g) Mallcom (India) Ltd. vs Rakesh Kumar, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7646, Para 24,25,26,27,29",
(h) Oxbridge Associates Ltd. vs Atul Kumra, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10641, Para 9",
(i) Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. vs Kumar Sachdev & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764, Para 38,44,49,52",
(j) Universal Contractors and Engineers P. Ltd. vs National Projects Constructions Corporation Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11436, Para",
26,
(k) Venezia Mobili India Pt. Ltd. vs Ramprastha Promoters and Developers Pvt. Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Del 7761, Para 30,33,35,36",
13. Mr. Anand further submits, on instructions, that since Defendants No.1 and 2 have removed the infringing hoardings and advertisements from all",
the platforms and have stopped use of the Plaintiffs’ well-known trademark TATA as well as the ‘T’ within a circle device and,
, Plaintiffs are ready to forgo their claims for damages and costs, in the event the Defendants are willing to suffer an injunction in terms of",
prayers enumerated in paragraph 51 (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of the plaint.",
14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Defendants No.1 and 2, submits that the answering Defendants have discontinued and taken down the",
Plaintiffs’ well-known trademark TATA as well as the ‘T’ within a circle device and , from all platforms such as",
hoardings, online and physical. It is submitted that Defendants are willing to suffer an injunction in case the Plaintiffs give up their claim for costs and",
damages.,
15. In light of the aforesaid, application is allowed. Present suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Defendants No.1 and 2 in terms of",
prayers enumerated in paragraph 51 (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) of the Plaint, with no orders as to costs and damages, in light of the statement of the",
learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, foregoing the claim for costs and damages.",
16. Registry is directed to prepare a Decree sheet accordingly.,
17. With the aforesaid observations, present suit and pending application stand disposed of.",
