H & M Hennes & Mauritz Ab & Anr. vs. Hnm Traders & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The plaintiffs, H & M HENNES & MAURITZ AB & ANR., filed a suit for permanent injunction against infringement of trademark and copyright, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, damages, and delivery up. The Court had previously issued an ex parte ad interim injunction on February 5, 2019, restraining the defendants from using trademarks identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs'. During the proceedings, the defendants' counsel stated that the defendants surrendered their GST registration on November 17, 2018, and ceased trading in apparels in Class 14 prior to the suit's institution. The defendants had no objection to the suit being decreed as per paragraph 44 (a) to (e) of the plaint and agreed to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
Held
The Court accepted the statements and undertakings made by the defendants' counsel. The defendants were held bound by their undertaking not to object to the suit being decreed in accordance with paragraphs 44 (a) to (e) of the plaint and to pay costs of Rs. 25,000/-. The plaintiffs' counsel did not press for any other reliefs in light of these undertakings. The Court directed the costs to be deposited with the AIIMS Poor Fund within two weeks. The Court also directed the registry to prepare a decree sheet accordingly and to issue a certificate to the plaintiffs' representative to receive back half the court fee paid. The plaintiffs were granted leave to approach the RBI for remittance of monies paid by the defendants. The suit and pending application were disposed of.
Key Issues
1. Whether the defendants' actions constituted infringement of the plaintiffs' trademarks and copyright, and passing off, warranting a permanent injunction. Petitioner/Appellant's Argument: The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction based on the defendants' alleged infringement and passing off, as detailed in their plaint. The Court had already granted an ad interim injunction. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, the defendants' counsel made statements regarding their GST registration and cessation of business, which were accepted by the Court.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2019
Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction against infringement of trade mark as well as copyright, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up.
This Court vide a detailed ex parte ad interim injunction order dated 05th February, 2019 had restrained the defendants from using trade marks HnM/ / / or any other variants thereof singularly or in conjunction with any other word or monogram/logo or label which is identical/deceptively similar to the plaintiffs‟ trademarks H&M/ / / or any other manner whatsoever upon and in relation to their products/services/business whether as a trade mark, service mark, trade name, corporate name, trading style or as a website, domain name and e-mail address etc., in any manner whatsoever.
Today, learned counsel for defendants states that the defendants had surrendered their GST registration on 17th November, 2018 and had stopped trading in apparels in Class 14 even prior to the institution of the suit. He further states that the defendants have no objection if the present suit is decreed in accordance with para 44 (a) to (e) of the plaint. He also states that the defendants shall pay costs of Rs.25,000/-. In view of the aforesaid statements/undertakings, learned counsel for plaintiff does not wish to press for any or other reliefs. He fairly states that the costs of Rs.25,000/- be used for a charitable purpose. Accordingly, the costs of Rs.25,000/- is directed to be deposited with AIIMS Poor Fund Account No.10874588424 with SBI, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi (IFSC Code : SBIN0001536) within a period of two weeks. The statements/undertakings given by the learned counsel for defendants are accepted by this Court and defendants are held bound by the same. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly. Registry is directed to issue to an authorised representative of the plaintiffs a certificate authorizing him/her to receive back from the Collector half the amount of the Court fee paid by them in the present suit.
Learned counsel for the plaintiffs is granted leave to approach the RBI in accordance with law for remittance of monies paid by the defendants. With the aforesaid observations, present suit and pending application stand disposed of.
MANMOHAN, J MARCH 20, 2019 js
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.