Akemi Chemisch Technische Spezialfabrik Gmbh v. Devki Nandan Malik T/A Delhi Hardware And Engg Works
$~41 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 706/2024 & I.A. 36959/2024 AKEMI CHEMISCH TECHNISCHE SPEZIALFABRIK GMBH .....Plaintiff Through:
Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj, Mr. N.K.
Bhardwaj, Mr. Bikash Ghorai, and Mr. Rahul Maratha, Advocates Mob: 9818318973 versus DEVKI NANDAN MALIK T/A DELHI HARDWARE AND ENGG WORKS .....Defendant Through:
Mr. Akhil Sabharwal, Advocate Email: ak9legal@gmail.com Mob: 9958034177
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
O R D E R
% 16.12.2024 1.
The present suit has been filed seeking prayer for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark and copyright, passing off, delivery up, damages and rendition of accounts, etc. 2.
As per the plaint, the plaintiff launched its products firstly, under the brand name 'AKEMA' for the years 1933-1952. Thereafter, the plaintiff renamed the brand under the name 'AKEMI' in 1952. Subsequently, the sale of the AKEPOX series, started in the year 2003. Since the year 1952, the plaintiff, honestly, bonafidely, continuously, commercially, openly, exclusively and to the exclusion of others, uninterruptedly and in the course The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
of trade, has been using the said trademark in relation to its goods and business.
3.
The plaintiff has obtained separate registrations for the trademark 'AKEMI' and 'AKEPOX', details of which, are as follows:- 4.
The defendant was found to be manufacturing, distributing and selling counterfeit Akepox-5010 products under the mark 'AKEMI'/'AKEPOX'/'Akepox-5010 which is a gel-like, 2-component construction adhesive used for bonding of face joints indoors and outdoors. Thus, the present suit came to be filed. 5.
It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has been manufacturing, distributing and selling counterfeit 'Akepox-5010' in imitation packaging under the impugned marks, which are identical/deceptively similar to the trademarks/labels of the plaintiff's trademark and labels and other formative marks. A comparative chart showing the plaintiff's and defendant's product, as given in the plaint, is The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
reproduced as under:
6.
Vide order dated 21st August, 2024, the defendant was restrained from using the impugned mark and a Local Commissioner was also appointed. 7.
The report of the Local Commissioner has been filed, wherein, it has been stated as under:
"xxx xxx xxx
7. That after having duly inspecting and enquiring at the location, I am of the view that the infringing product named as 'ΑΚΕΜΙ'/'ΑΚΕΡΟXV Akepox-5010' is bought by the defendant on demand of the customer from other shopkeepers for which the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
defendant has given undertaking to same and named other shopkeepers in the undertaking.
8. Therefore, I hereby conclude my report by stating that no counterfeit goods of the defendant bearing the impugned trademarks 'AKEMI'/'AKEPOXV' Akepox-5010 were found at the premises of Defendant. That the copy of the Spot Proceedings along with the copy of the attendance sheet is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-LC-4.
xxx xxx xxx"
8.
Today, learned counsel appearing for the defendant submits that the defendant is ready to suffer a decree of permanent injunction. He further submits that the defendant is not dealing in the counterfeit products of the plaintiff.
9.
The defendant is held bound by the aforesaid undertaking. 10.
Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that though he is satisfied with the undertaking given by the defendant. However, he submits that the defendant had admitted to transaction with respect to goods with the infringing mark, and presses for some cost.
11.
Considering the submissions made before this Court, with the consent of the parties, the following directions are issued: I.
The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of Para 35(a) of the plaint.
II.
The defendant shall pay a sum of ₹ 10,000/ -, to the plaintiff within a period of ten days from today on account of costs. III.
The said amount shall be paid to the plaintiff, through the plaintiff's counsel.
12.
Considering the fact that this is the second hearing before this Court, and the plaintiff has accepted the undertaking of the defendant, the Registry The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
of this Court is directed to issue a Certificate of Refund of Full Court Fees in favour of the plaintiff.
13.
Decree sheet be drawn up.
14.
The present suit along with the pending application, stands disposed of.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J DECEMBER 16, 2024 ak The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.