Delhi High Court Imposes Permanent Injunction Restraining Rajasthan-Based Restaurant from Using 'Sadda Pind' Mark: Directs to pay Rs. 2 lakh as Punitive Costs

Delhi High Court Imposes Permanent Injunction Restraining Rajasthan-Based Restaurant from Using 'Sadda Pind' Mark: Directs to pay Rs. 2 lakh as Punitive Costs

The Delhi High Court imposed permanent injunction restraining a Rajasthan-based restaurant from using the mark “Sadda Pind,” which was registered in favor of a famous tourist place in Punjab.

In the present case, the plaintiff- JMD Heritage Lawns Pvt. Ltd. is a private limited company engaged in hospitality and allied services. The plaintiff runs what is known as a “Cultural Living Museum” by name SADDA PIND with the logo.

The plaintiff possesses word mark registrations, under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, in respect of the word mark SADDA PIND, as well as the device marks, “SADA PIND JEWEL OF PUNJAB” and “SADA PIND FLAVOURS CELEBRATIONS CULTURE” with effect from 16th October 2015, 15th February 2016 and 19th September 2017 respectively.

The plaint instituted by the plaintiff further asserted that, in a short period of time, the plaintiff had acquired considerable goodwill in its word mark as well as its device marks. The plaintiff had also provided figures of its annual turnover which, during the year 2021- 22, was to the tune of Rs. 13.8 2 crore. It was also asserted, in the plaint, that the plaintiff had invested considerable amounts towards advertisement and promotional activities which, during the year 2021- 22, is to the tune of Rs. 26,69,000.

The logo, “SADA PIND FLAVOURS CELEBRATIONS CULTURE” is also registered in favor of the plaintiff as an original artistic work under the Copyrights Act, 1957.

Therefore, the plaintiff submitted, that it possessed enforceable rights against infringement or passing off of its marks, both under common law as well as statute.

The defendant- Mr. Ankit Chawla Proprietor Sadda Pind Restaurant, was stated to be running a restaurant using logos, which were identical to that of the plaintiff, in Rajasthan. On coming to know of the said fact, the plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice to the defendant on 31st May 2022, requesting the defendant to discontinue use of the infringing marks.

The defendant, instead of doing so, replied on 18th July 2022, contesting the allegation of infringement, and terming the similarity of the mark as purely coincidental.

In October last year, the Court had temporarily restrained Chawla from using the marks in question.

The single judge Justice C. Hari Shankar found that the defendant clearly, and with obvious intent to ride on the goodwill of the plaintiff, adopted the infringing logos which was identical to the logo adopted by the plaintiff.

When the plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice to the defendant, the defendant, in its reply, misrepresented that it was not using the aforesaid logo but was using the logo 5ADDA PIND. This misrepresentation was also noted by the Court in its order dated 7th October 2022.

Even in its written statement filed by way of response to the suit, the defendant had contested the plea of infringement and claimed that its mark did not infringe the plaintiff’s registered mark.

The Court noted that after the order of injunction was passed, the defendant, instead of discontinuing use of the infringing mark, merely changed it to 5ADDA P1ND.

“This amounts to no less than cocking a snook at this Court, especially given the observation of this Court, that the mark “5” as used in “5ADDA PIND” is deceptively similar to “S”, stated the judge.

The judge further stated, “A defendant who behaves in such a fashion cannot be let off lightly. The defendant is not merely guilty of initial infringement but of continuous and obdurate insistence on persisting with its infringing activity despite several opportunities to discontinue the same. In the process, the plaintiff has been dragged into an unnecessary litigation and precious court time has been wasted.”

While noting the contumacious disobedience of the injunction order dated 7th October 2022, the Court held that the defendant was liable for punitive action under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

While decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff, the court imposed punitive costs of Rs. 2 lakh on Chawla to be deposited in favor of an NGO based in Uttar Pradesh working for underprivileged slum children and directed to deposit the costs with the Registrar within a period of eight weeks.

Accordingly, the Court imposed a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the word mark or the mark “SADDA PIND” or any other such mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered word mark or device marks.