Delhi High Court Grants ₹15 Lakhs Monetary Damages To Owner Of Trademark 'BOAT' Over Seizure Of Counterfeit Products

The Delhi High Court has ordered a total of Rs. 15 lakhs monetary damages to be paid the owner of trademark 'BOAT' over seizure of various counterfeit products based on inspection made by Court appointed Local Commissioners.

Justice Pratibha M Singh was of the view that the Defendants had blatantly infringed the trademark and logos as also the packaging of the Plaintiff's products. 

Therefore, considering the quantum of counterfeit products which were seized, the Court decreed the suit against the two defendants no. 1 and 6. While the suit was decreed against the Defendant No.1 for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, the same was done against the Defendant No. 6 for a sum of Rs.10 lakhs.

The Court directed the said defendants to make payment of the said amount to the Plaintiff within a period of two weeks.

It however said that since no products were found in the premises of Defendant No.3, no monetary damages were being imposed on it.

The suit was filed by Imagine Marketing Private Limited regarding the trademark BOAT used by it in respect of various electronic gadgets such as earphones, headphones, speakers, sound bars, travel chargers, premium rugged cables, etc.

It was the Plaintiff's case that it owned the rights in the trademark 'BOAT' as also rights in the logo 'BOAT' which was stated to be an original artistic work in respect of the manner in which 'BOAT' is written.

The Court noted that the Defendant Nos.1, 3 and 6 had not entered appearance despite service and despite being aware of the pendency of this suit. It also noted that the other Defendants being Defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 had already settled the dispute subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000 and that the suit had already been decreed qua the said Defendants, vide order dated 10th August, 2021. Accordingly, the Court proceeded ex-parte against Defendants Nos.1, 3 and 6.

Vide order dated 24th December, 2020, Local Commissioners were appointed for seizure of the infringing products from the Defendants' premises.

Regarding Defendant No.1, the Local Commissioner submitted a report stating that various products bearing the mark 'BOAT' were identified and a total of 22 pieces of counterfeit products were seized from the said premises.

Regarding Defendant No.3, the Local Commissioner reported that no infringing products were found from the premises of the said defendant.

However, regarding Defendant no. 6, the Local Commissioner found various goods bearing the Plaintiff's mark 'BOAT' including total of more than 120 pieces of Bluetooth headsets, Wireless Headsets, Earphones, Wireless Earphones, Portable Speakers and packaging material.

"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 Court noted.

Thus, the Court was of the view that the Plaintiff, being the owner of the registered trademark 'BOAT' including the logo, was entitled to protection of its rights in the trade as also device mark and the logos.

"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 directed.

Case Title: IMAGINE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED v. M/S GREEN ACCESSORIES THROUGH: ITS PROPRIETOR AND ANR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 235

Click Here To Read Order