Sandisk Llc, & ANR v. Pankaj Bajaj & ANR

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(COMM) 854/2017 & I.A.No.15013/2017 SANDISK LLC, & ANR ..... Plaintiffs Through Mr.Prithvi Singh with Mr.Utkarsh Joshi, Advocates.

versus PANKAJ BAJAJ & ANR ..... Defendants Through Ms.Renu Gupta, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

O R D E R

% 04.05.2018 I.A.No.4247/2018 Keeping in view the averments made in the application and the large seizure at the proposed applicant's shop, this Court is of the view that the proposed applicant-defendant no.2 is a necessary and proper party.

Consequently, the present application is allowed and the applicant is impleaded as defendant no.2 in the memo of parties. Let an amended memo of parties be filed within a period of one week.

I.A.No.15017/2017 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the confidential affidavit filed by the plaintiffs in a sealed cover is taken on record. Registry is directed to keep the same in a sealed cover only.

Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of. CS(COMM) 854/2017 & I.A.No.15013/2017 Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, trade dress, copyright, passing off, rendition of account of profits, damages and delivery up. This Court vide a detailed order dated 15th December, 2017, restrained the defendants, their partners, proprietors, servants, agents and all others in active concert with them from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in infringing products/product packaging bearing the plaintiffs' trade mark 'SanDisk' and the 'Red Frame' logo.

Two local commissioners were also appointed to visit the different sites in question. While 4691 infringing pieces were seized from the shop of defendant no.1, 485 infringing pieces were seized from the shop of defendant no.2.

Defendant nos.1 & 2 are personally present in Court. They state that they have no objection if the present suit is decreed in accordance with prayers (a) and (b) of the plaint. They, however, pray for leniency with regard to costs and damages. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs have no objection if the present suit is decreed provided reasonable costs and damages are paid and the seized goods are handed over to an authorized representative of the plaintiffs for destruction purposes. The defendants who appear in person have no objection to the same.

Consequently, the present suit is decreed in accordance with

prayers (a) and (b) of the present suit and the seized goods in possession of defendant no.2 are directed to be handed over to an authorized representative of the plaintiffs on 11th May, 2018 at 4.00 P.M. The defendant no.2 is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.25,000/- in five equated monthly instalments. The first instalment shall be paid by defendant no.2 on 11th May, 2018 itself. The goods seized from the shop of defendant no.1 shall be handed over to Mr.Gaurav Singh on 11th May, 2018 at 4.00 P.M. and the balance goods lying with the Registry of this Court shall be handed over by the Joint Registrar to an authorized representative of the plaintiff on 10th May, 2018. The defendant no.1 shall pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in five equated monthly instalments and the first of such instalments shall be paid by defendant no.2 on 11th May, 2018. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.

MANMOHAN, J MAY 04, 2018 KA