CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 1 of 22

$~22

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(COMM) 882/2023&I.A. 45489/2024

THE INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LIMITED .....Plaintiff

Through: Ms. Priya Adlakha with Ms. Sucharu

Garg and Ms. Shilpi Sinha, Advs .

(M): 9911167179

Email:

Email:

litigation@fiduslawchambers.com

versus

ANKIT SETHI & ORS. .....Defendants

Through: Mr. Shivam Narang, Adv. for D-2

(Through VC)

Mr. Santosh Kumar Rout, SC with

Ms Dharna Veragi, Mr. B.N. Mishra

and Ms. Shilpa Chaursia, Advs. for

D-3 (Through VC)

M: 9990432878

skrlawfirms@gmail.com

Mr. NilenduVatsyayan, Adv. for D-4

(Through VC)

Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.

Arvan Mittal and Mr. Debaish

Mishra, Advs. for D-5 and 6.

M: 8588916612

Email: nidhiraman.office@gmail.com

Mr. Manish Kr. Tiwari, Adv. for D-8

M: 9911795535

Email:

advtiwarimanish@gmail.com

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 03.03.2025

MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL)

I.A. 45489/2024 (Application for Summary Judgment under Order

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 2 of 22

XIII-A Rules 3 & 6(1)(a) read with Section 151 of Code of

CivilProcedure, 1908)

1. The instant application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under

Order XIII-A, Rules 3 and 6(1)(a), read with Section 151 of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC”), seeking a summary judgment.

2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for a decree of permanent

injunction restraining infringement of its registered trademarks ‘GINGER’

(“GINGER trademarks”) in Class 43 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

(“Trade Marks Act”) and the subsisting copyright in the original

professional photographs of the plaintiff’s GINGER hotels, passing off,

dilution, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up, etc.

3. The present dispute pertains to the plaintiff’s grievance regarding the

unauthorized use of its registered trademark ‘GINGER’ by the defendant

nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10 through infringing websites, i.e.,

www.gingerhotelmumbai.info and www.hotelgingermumbai.info

(“impugned websites”). The said defendants are stated to have engaged in

infringing practices, by misrepresenting their websites as that of plaintiff’s

official website www.gingerhotels.com, thereby, misleading users/customers

into making payments for hotel bookings.

4. The case, as set up by the plaintiff, in the plaint, is as follows:

4.1. The plaintiff is a part of India’s biggest conglomerate, i.e., the ‘Tata

Group of Companies’, and is a giant in the Indian hospitality sector that manages a huge portfolio of hotels, resorts, palaces, etc.

4.2. The plaintiff opened its first hotel, i.e., Taj Mahal Palace, Bombay

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 3 of 22

(now, Mumbai) in the year 1903. As of today, the plaintiff , and its

subsidiaries, together form a group of brands and businesses offering a

world-class service in hospitality, which includes, TAJ, VIVANTA,

SELEQTIONS, GINGER and Ama Stays and Trails.

4.3. The plaintiff, since 2019, has been operating its parent website, i.e.,

www.ihcltata.com, which provides all the exhaustive information about the

plaintiff and its subsidiaries. The said website is accessible all around the

world and it redirects the users to the brands’ dedicated websites for any

further information and reservations.

4.4. In the year 2004, plaintiff launched its brand ‘GINGER ’ hotels, in a

new category of ‘Smart Basics’, with a primary objective of providing a

superior service offering and consistent experience to travellers and thereby,

transformed its ‘Smart Basics’ hotels into lean- luxe hotels.

4.5. The plaintiff also holds several registrations of the mark ‘GINGER’,

both as a word mark and also in the form of various device marks, with the

earliest registration being for the device mark ‘GINGER’, i.e., ,

bearing registration no. 1407317, with the date of application being 19

th

4.6. Further, the plaintiff has also been operating a dedicated website

December, 2005, in Class 43 of the Trade Marks Act.

www.gingerhotels.com on the internet since 23

rd

4.7. In addition, the aforesaid website has its original professional

photograph of each ‘GINGER’ hotel’s property uploaded on it, which are

the ‘original artistic work’ of the plaintiff, within the meaning of Section

December, 2005, through

which the plaintiff has been extensively promoting the ‘GINGER’ hotels

and services therein.

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 4 of 22

2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (“ Copyright Act”). The plaintiff is also the

first owner of the said copyright, within the meaning of Section 17, and

therefore, is also entitled to their exclusive rights in terms of Section 14(c)

of the Copyright Act.

4.8. The plaintiff, further, has a widespread prominence and is connected

with the public, through various social media platforms such as Instagram,

Facebook, etc., and is also listed on several accommodation and travel

booking websites, such as www.makemytrip.com, www.easemytrip.com,

etc.

4.9. The plaintiff’s sub -brand, i.e., ‘GINGER ’ hotels has now become one

of the leaders in its segment, which is showcased by the Annual Report of

Financial Year 2022-23 for the brand ‘GINGER’, wherein, the plaintiff’s

revenue, was recorded to be more than Rs. 300 Crores, with Earnings Before

Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (“EBITDA”) of Rs. 120

Crores.

4.10. Plaintiff’s marks ‘GINGER’ due to the long and extensive use,

promotional and advertisement activities through social media platforms,

etc., have acquired goodwill and reputation, and are solely associated with

the plaintiff in relation to its hospitality business and services therein.

4.11. On 26

th

November, 2023, the plaintiff, through an online portal

www.locobuzz.com, which the plaintiff uses as its Brand Reputation

Management (“BRM”) tool, came across the fake website

www.gingerhotelmumbai.info, which prominently displayed the plaintiff’s

registered trademark ‘GINGER’ at the homepage of the website. The said

website purported to be a website through which the booking in the

‘GINGER’ hotels of the plaintiff could be secured. The impugned website ,

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 5 of 22

registered on 21

st

4.12. Before the suit was filed, the said impugned website, i.e.,

November, 2023, also displayed the original professional

photographs of plaintiff’s hotel, i.e., GINGER Hotel, Andheri East, Mumbai.

www.gingerhotelmumbai.info was redirected to a new fake domain name,

i.e., www.hotelgingermumbai.info, which was registered only on 05

th

4.13. The impugned domain names were registered, with the malafide and

dishonest intent to deceive the plaintiff’s customers, infringe upon the

plaintiff’s registered ‘GINGER’ trademarks and copyrights, and pass off the

fake website as that of the plaintiff’s. This has resulted in the dilution of the

plaintiff’s marks and caused significant damage to its business, goodwill and

reputation.

December, 2023.

4.14. Being aggrieved by the defendants’ infringing actions in relation to

plaintiff’s mark ‘GINGER’, and also the misuse of plaintiff’s contents and

original photographs, the present suit has been filed.

5. This Court, vide order dated 13

th

December, 2023, granted an ad

interim ex-parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff, thereby, directing the

defendants to discontinue the use of domain names of the plaintiff and take

down the impugned websites, i.e.,

www.gingerhotelmumbai.info and

www.hotelgingermumbai.info.

6. Further, this Court, vide the aforesaid order, had also directed

defendant no. 2 (Domain Name Registrar) to suspend access to the said

impugned domains and disclose registrant details within a week. Defendant

nos. 3 and 4 (concerned banks) were directed to freeze the bank accounts

used for carrying out the infringing activities, submit the KYC documents

and account statements, and block any other identified accounts. Further,

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 6 of 22

defendant no. 7 (telephone service provider) was directed to block the

mobile number, i.e., +91 -9023915101, submit its KYC details, and block

any additional numbers identified by the plaintiff.

7. This Court notes that, pursuant to the said directions, the defendant

nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7 had disclosed the KYC details of the defendants involved

in the operation of the said impugned websites. Consequently, plaintiff had

filed the amended Memo of Parties, which is reproduced as under:

8. Further, this Court, vide the order dated 14

th

March, 2024, had also

noted the fact that defendant no. 2 had suspended and blocked access to the

said domain names. Additionally, it was noted that defendant nos. 3 and 4

had complied with the directions given in the order dated 13

th

9. Since the defendants had not filed any written statement, the ad

interim ex-parte injunction in favour of the plaintiff, was made absolute vide

December,

2023 to freeze the bank accounts of defendants. Furthermore, defendant no.

7 had also complied with the directions, given in the said order, by blocking

access to impugned mobile number +91-9023915101, which was being used

for carrying out the illegal activities.

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 7 of 22

order dated 14

th

10. Consequently, this Court, vide order dated 13

March, 2024.

th

11. Accordingly, this Court proceeded against the defendant nos. 1, 8, 9

and 10, ex- parte, vide order dated 15

August, 2024, closed

the right of the defendants to file written statement as the maximum

permissible period for filing written statement, had expired.

th

12. At the outset, this Court notes that the plaintiff had adopted the mark

‘GINGER’, in the year 2005, and is also the registered proprietor of the

‘GINGER’ trademarks, i.e., word mark, as well as device marks. The

registration of numerous mar ks of plaintiff in Class 43, is evident from the

table, reproduced as under:

January, 2025.

13. This Court notes that the plaintiff has also been operating a dedicated

website, i.e.,

www.gingerhotels.com, with the domain name registration

dated 23

rd

December, 2005, which exclusively promotes and provides all the

information about ‘GINGER’ hotels, such as, customer reviews, room

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 8 of 22

availability, membership programmes, attractive offers, etc.

14. Further, this Court takes note of the submission made on behalf of the

plaintiff that the plaintiff is also the owner of the original professional

photographs of each ‘GINGER

15. In addition, the plaintiff has continuously and consistently used the

mark ‘GINGER’ for its business activities over the years. The documents

placed on record suggest that the plaintiff has also received numerous

awards/recognitions, such as, ‘Best Budget Hotel’, ‘Best Value Hotel -

India’, etc. Further more, the plaintiff’s brand ‘GINGER’ has been featured

by various media houses in the digital and print media, which is evident

from the photographs attached with the plaint.

’ hotel property displayed on the said website

and holds exclusive rights over these photographs under the Copyright Act,

as they constitute the plaintiff’s original artistic work.

16. This Court takes note of the Annual Report for the Financial Year

2022-2023, highlighting the financials of the plaintiff, wherein, the plaintiff

has earned revenue exceeding Rs. 300 Crores in the Financial Year 2022-23.

17. This Court also notes that the plaintiff has undertaken various

measures to protect its intellectual property rights from being misuse d,

whereby, the Trade Marks Registry has upheld the plaintiff’s rights in the

mark ‘GINGER’ in multiple opposition proceedings against third parties

using similar or identical trademarks.

18. It is further noted that, defendants have unauthorizedly used the

plaintiff’s marks ‘GINGER’ on the home page of their impugned website,

along with content and photographs from the plaintiff’s official website of

‘GINGER’ hotels. The same is evident from a comparison of the plaintiff’s

official website with the defendants’ impugned website, i.e.,

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 9 of 22

www.gingerhotelmumbai.info. The comparison table of the plaintiff’s

official website and the defendants’ impugned website, is reproduced herein

below:

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 10 of 22

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 11 of 22

19. The defendants have also been offering rooms at a ‘GINGER’ hotel in

Mumbai, while mentioning the impugned mobile no. +91 -9023915101 on

their website for booking purposes, which is evident from the

photographs/document, reproduced as under :

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 12 of 22

20. In addition to the above, it is also pertinent to note that during the

proceedings of the present suit, the KYC documents and bank statements

filed by the proforma defendants, revealed that the registrant of the

impugned domain names was defendant no. 1, i.e., Ankit Sethi, who had

presumably designed and operated the impugned websites in collusion with

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 13 of 22

defendant nos. 8, 9 and 10, to unlawfully profit by exploiting and

misappropriating the plaintiff’s mark ‘GINGER’. The infringing actions of

defendant no. 1 are further evident from the fact that he, using the email ID

hackerankitsethi@gmail.com, operates a similar business of software

development, website designing, and digital marketing under the name

‘Hackploit’.

21. Upon perusal of the documents submitted by the proforma defendants,

it is evident that defendant no. 8, i.e., Mr. Chandrashekhar, and defendant

no. 10, i.e., Mr. Vankar Ronak Kumar, are interconnected, as they used the

same Email ID, i.e., sharma7676123@gmail.c om, in their KYC documents.

The said E mail ID was not only used for opening the bank account in Punjab

National Bank, but also for purchasing the SIM card associated with the

impugned mobile number, further indicating their involvement in the infringing activities. The use of the same Email ID in the KYC documents

of defendant nos. 8 and 10, is evident from the table reproduced as under:

22. Furthermore, this Court takes note of the transaction of Rs. 4332/-,

made by one customer named Mr. Gulshan Agnani on 25

th

November, 2023,

which was credited to the account of defendant no. 8, i.e.,

1570100100006061. The said transaction was reflected as a ‘credit entry’ in

the bank statement furnished by the defendant no. 3 , i.e., Punjab National

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 14 of 22

Bank. Moreover, the said bank statement for the period from 12

th

November,

2023 to 27

th

23. Additionally, it is also pertinent to note that the plaintiff’s officials

had carried out an investigation on 28

November, 2023, also clearly shows that defendant no. 8, i.e.,

Mr. Chandrashekhar, had a total amount credited to his bank account to the

tune of Rs. 4,60,302/-.

th

24. Furthermore, as per the documents submitted by the Canara Bank,

including, the statement of account of the aforesaid bank account of

defendant no. 9, it is evident that defendant no. 9 had a total credited amount

of Rs. 1,310,184/-, as reflected in the statement of account for the period

between 05

November, 2023 and had booked a

deluxe room and a super deluxe hotel room by making payments of Rs.

3750/- and Rs. 4650/-, respectively, to the bank account of defendant no. 9

registered in Canara Bank. The records , as furnished by Canara Bank,

clearly establish that the said bank account belonged to defendant no. 9, as

the transaction of Rs. 3750/- made by the plaintiff’s investigator was

reflected as a ‘credit entry’ in the bank statement of the said account of

defendant no. 9.

th

January, 2023 to 05

th

25. Thus, it is apparent that defendant nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10 have been

carrying out their infringing activities through use of fake domain names,

which contains the trademark of the plaintiff’s hotel. In the context of

domain names, it has been held by Supreme Court that domain names have

all the characteristics of a trademark. The use of the same or similar domain

name may lead to a diversion of users, which could result from such users,

January, 2024, there by, reflecting the

scale of infringing acts done by the defendant no. 9 in collusion with the

other defendants in the present case.

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 15 of 22

mistakenly accessing one domain name, instead of another. Where a domain

name is used in connection with a business, the value of maintaining an

exclusive identity becomes critical. Thus, i n the case of Satyam Infoway

Ltd. Versus Siffynet Solutions (P ) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 145, the Supreme

Court, while dealing with the issue of whether internet domain names are

subject to legal norms, which are applicable to other intellectual properties

such as trademark, has opined as follows:

“xxx xxx xxx

11. Analysing and cumulatively paraphrasing the relevant parts of the

aforesaid definitions, the question which is apposite is whether a

domain name can be said to be a word or name which is capable of

distinguishing the subject of trade or service made available to

potential users of the internet.

12. The original role of a domain name was no doubt to provide an

address for computers on the internet.

But the internet has developed

from a mere means of communication to a mode of carrying on

commercial activity. With the increase of commercial activity on the

internet, a domain name is also used as a business identifier.

Therefore, the domain name not only serves as an address for

internet communication but also identifies the specific internet site.

In the commercial field, each domain-name owner provides

information/services which are associated with such domain name.

Thus a domain name may pertain to provision of services within the

meaning of Section 2(1)(z). A domain name is easy to remember and

use, and is chosen as an instrument of commercial enterprise not

only because it facilitates the ability of consumers to navigate the

internet to find websites they are looking for, but also at the same

time, serves to identify and distinguish the business itself, or its

goods or services, and to specify its corresponding online internet

location [ Ryder, Rodney D.: Intellectual Property and the Internet,

pp. 96- 97.] . Consequently a domain name as an address must, of

necessity, be peculiar and unique and where a domain name is used

in connection with a business, the value of maintaining an exclusive

identity becomes critical

“As more and more commercial enterprises trade or advertise their presence on the web, domain names have become more and more valuable and the potential for dispute is high. Whereas a large number of trade marks

.

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 16 of 22

containing the same name can comfortably coexist

because they are associated with different products,

belong to business in different jurisdictions, etc.,

the

distinctive nature of the domain name providing global

exclusivity is much sought after. The fact that many

consumers searching for a particular site are likely, in

the first place, to try and guess its domain name has

further enhanced this value

14. The second element that must be established by a plaintiff in a

passing- off action is misrepresentation by the defendant to the public.

The word misrepresentation does not mean that the plaintiff has to prove any mala fide intention on the part of the defendant. Of course, if the misrepresentation is intentional, it might lead to an inference that the reputation of the plaintiff is such that it is worth the defendant's while to cash in on it. An innocent misrepresentation would be relevant only on the question of the ultimate relief which

would be granted to the plaintiff [Cadbury Schweppes v. Pub Squash,

1981 RPC 429 : (1981) 1 All ER 213 : (1981) 1 WLR 193 (PC); Erven

Warnink v. Townend, 1980 RPC 31 : (1979) 2 All ER 927 : 1979 AC

731 (HL)] . What has to be established is the likelihood of confusion

in the minds of the public (the word “public” being understood to

[ See Rowland, Diane and

Macdonald, Elizabeth: Information Technology Law, 2nd

Edn., p. 521.] .”

The answer to the question posed in the preceding paragraph is therefore in the affirmative.

13. The next question is, would the principles of trade mark law and in particular those relating to passing off apply? An action for passing off, as the phrase “passing off” itself suggests, is to restrain the

defendant from passing off its goods or services to the public as that

of the plaintiff's. It is an action not only to preserve the reputation of the plaintiff but also to safeguard the public. The defendant must have

sold its goods or offered its services in a manner which has deceived or would be likely to deceive the public into thinking that the defendant's goods or services are the plaintiff's. The action is normally available to the owner of a distinctive trade mark and the

person who, if the word or name is an invented one, invents and uses it. If two trade rivals claim to have individually invented the same

mark, then the trader who is able to establish prior user will succeed.

The question is, as has been aptly put, who gets these first? It is not

essential for the plaintiff to prove long user to establish reputation in

a passing- off action. It would depend upon the volume of sales and

extent of advertisement.

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 17 of 22

mean actual or potential customers or users) that the goods or

services offered by the defendant are the goods or the services of the

plaintiff. In assessing the likelihood of such confusion the courts must

allow for the “imperfect recollection of a person of ordinary memory”

[Aristoc v. Rysta, 1945 AC 68 : (1945) 1 All ER 34 (HL)] .

15. The third element of a passing- off action is loss or the likelihood

of it.

16.

The use of the same or similar domain name may lead to a

diversion of users which could result from such users mistakenly

accessing one domain name instead of another. This may occur in e-

commerce with its rapid progress and instant (and theoretically

limitless) accessibility to users and potential customers and

particularly so in areas of specific overlap. Ordinary

consumers/users seeking to locate the functions available under one

domain name may be confused if they accidentally arrived at a

different but similar website which offers no such services. Such

users could well conclude that the first domain-name owner had

misrepresented its goods or services through its promotional

activities and the first domain-owner would thereby lose its custom.

It is apparent, therefore, that a domain name may have all the

characteristics of a trade mark and could found an action for

passing off

26. It is evident that the defendant nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10 are imposters, who

have infringed the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyright. Right of

the proprietor, in a domain name, warrants the same protection as those in a

trademark. The said defendants are also guilty of passing off their fake

websites as the plaintiff’s. The use of plaintiff’s registered trademark

‘GINGER’ as part of the impugned domain names by the defendants, and

operating the fake websites on the impugned domain names, which display

the plaintiff’s ‘GINGER’ trademarks prominently, are blatant acts of

infringement and passing off. By unauthorizedly misusing the plaintiff’s

original professional photographs of the plaintiff’s hotel, on the impugned

.

xxx xxx xxx”

(Emphasis Supplied)

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 18 of 22

website, the said defendants have clearly infringed the plaintiff’s copyright

in the said photographs.

27. In view of the aforesaid, it is established that defendant nos. 1, 8, 9

and 10 are engaged in illegal activities, which are potentially criminal in

nature, and are aimed at deceiving unwary consumers by making them pay

through their website under the false pretense of securing reservations with

the plaintiff’s ‘GINGER’ hotels. Therefore, the aforesaid actions of the said

defendants, amount to fraudulent misrepresentation and also constitute an

attempt to misappropriate the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation in the

market.

28. Based on the above discussion, in the present case, it is manifest that

the actions of the defendant nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10 in adopting and using the

plaintiff’s marks, photographs and contents, forged receipts, clearly is

malafide, deliberate and intentional. Thus, a clear case of infringement of

trademarks and copyright is made out. The defendant’s infringing actions

are bound to cause deception and confusion in the minds of unwary

consumers, who will assume the defendant’s impugned websites to have

originated from the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has been able to make a

clear case not only of infringement of the plaintiff’s trademarks, but of

passing off, as well.

29. At this stage, this Court also notes that defendant nos. 1, 9 and 10

have neither appeared in the proceedings before this Court, nor have filed

any written statement, despite service of summons. Further, defendant no. 8,

even though, had appeared before this Court on several occasions i.e., 08

th

May, 2024, 18

th

July, 2024 and 30

th

July, 2024, but has chosen not to file any

written statement rebutting the contentions of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 19 of 22

manifest that said defendants, in the present case, have no defence on merit

to put forth before this Court. As such, for all purposes, the pleadings made

by the plaintiff, herein, are deemed to have been admitted by the defendants.

30. Considering the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the

plaintiffs are entitled to a decree under Order XIII-A of the Commercial

Courts Act, 2015, as the said provision empowers this Court to pass a

summary judgment, without recording evidence, if it appears that the

defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim, and there is no other

compelling reason why the claim should not be disposed of before recording

of oral evidence. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the view

that a clear case of infringement and passing off, is made out in the present

case. The defendant nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10 have no right to publish the

photographs and other materials, in which the plaintiff has copyright.

Accordingly, no purpose would be served in directing the plaintiffs to lead

ex-parte evidence. The defendants have no real prospect of defending the

claim of the plaintiffs, in the absence of any written statement.

31. Thus, the present case is a fit case for passing a summary judgment in

terms of Order XIII- A CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, read with

Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022.

The plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction in its favour.

32. In so far as the relief for damages, as sought by the plaintiff in

amended Prayer Clause 45 (h) is concerned, this Court notes that, in plethora

of cases, damages have been granted on account of the defendants not

appearing deliberately, despite having the knowledge of the proceedings.

33. At this stage, reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Cartier

International A.G. & Others Versus Gaurav Bhatia & Others, 2016 SCC

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 20 of 22

OnLine Del 8, wherein, it has been opined as under:

“xxx xxx xxx

65. It appears from the conduct of the defendants who have

deliberately stayed away from the present proceedings with the result

that an enquiry into their accounts for determination of damages

could not take place.

66

. It is well settled that damages in such cases must be awarded and

a defendant, who chooses to stay away from the proceedings of the

Court, should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of evasion of

court proceedings. Any view to the contrary would result in a

situation where the defendant who appears in Court and submits its

account books would be liable for damages, while a party which

chooses to stay away from court proceedings would escape the

liability on account of failure of the availability of account books.

xxx xxx xxx

69

70.

. With regard to the relief of damages as claimed by the plaintiffs

in para 44(g) of the plaint, this Court has previously granted both

exemplary and punitive damages against the defendants in ex-

partematters of similar nature. In Time Incorporated v. Lokesh

Srivastava, (supra) while awarding punitive damages of Rs. 5 lakhs

in addition to compensatory damages also of Rs. 5 lakhs, Justice

R.C. Chopra observed that “time has come when the Courts dealing

in actions for infringement of trademarks, copyrights, patents etc.,

should not only grant compensatory damages but also award

punitive damages with a view to discourage and dishearten law

breakers who indulge in violation with impunity out of lust for

money, so that they realise that in case they are caught, they would

be liable not only to reimburse the aggrieved party but would be

liable to pay punitive damages also, which may spell financial

disaster for them.”

Further, this Court in Microsoft Corporation v. Rajendra Pawar,

2008 (36) PTC 697 (Del.) decided on 27th July, 2007 has held

“Perhaps it has now become a trend of sorts, especially in matters

pertaining to passing off, for the defending party to evade court

proceedings in a systematic attempt to jettison the relief sought by

the plaintiff. Such flagrancy of the Defendant's conduct is strictly

deprecatory, and those who recklessly indulge in such shenanigans

must do so at their peril, for it is now an inherited wisdom that

evasion of court proceedings does not de facto tantamount to escape

from liability. Judicial process has its own way of bringing to tasks

such erring parties whilst at the same time ensuring that the aggrieved party who has knocked the doors of the court in anticipation of justice

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 21 of 22

is afforded with adequate relief, both in law and in equity. It is here

that the concept of awarding punitive damages comes into

perspective” .

xxx xxx xxx”

(Emphasis Supplied)

34. In the present case, the defendant nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10 have blatantly

infringed the trademarks of the plaintiff and have also failed to appear

before this Court. Furthermore, the illegal and fraudulent activities of the

defendants may not only cause incalculable loss to the plaintiff, but also to

the large number of users /customers accessing the plaintiff’s website , i.e.,

www.gingerhotels.com, who may be under an impression that the

defendants’ impugned websites, i.e., www.gingerhotelmumbai.info and

www.hotelgingermumbai.info are from the sub -brand of the plaintiff

company, and consequently, affecting the business, goodwill and reputation associated with the plaintiff’s mark.

35. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,

including the scale of the infringing activities undertaken by defendant nos.

1, 8, 9 and 10, this Court is of the view that actions of defendant nos. 1, 8, 9

and 10 not on ly warrant, but also necessitates, the imposition of damages.

36. In view of the aforesaid, the present application is allowed and the

suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in terms

of the following directions:

I. Decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiff, in

terms of paragraph 45 (a) , (b), (c), (e) and (f) of the amended p rayer

as filed on 25

th

II. The plaintiff is entitled to costs and damages to the tune of Rs. 20

Lacs, payable by defendant nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10, jointly and severally.

February, 2025 .

CS(COMM) 882/2023 Page 22 of 22

III. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within a period of four months

from today.

37. Decree sheet be drawn up.

38. The present suit, along with pending application, is accordingly

disposed of.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

MARCH 3, 2025/kr

Corrected & Released on:

02

nd

April, 2025