SHREE SANT KRIPA INTELLECTUAL & ANR. vs. SYSKA MOBILE SEMI CONDUCTORS & ORS.

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(COMM) 559/2016

SHREE SANT KRIPA INTELLECTUAL & ANR.
..... Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Shailen Bhatia, Advocate with
Ms. Priyanka Anand and Mr. Nikhil
Mittal, Advocates

versus

SYSKA MOBILE SEMI CONDUCTORS & ORS.
..... Defendants
Through: None


th
% Date of Decision: 11 September, 2017

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

J U D G M E N T

MANMOHAN , J (oral):
1. Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining
infringement of copyright, passing off of trademark, trade name,
damages, delivery up etc. The prayer clause in the suit is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"a) An order for permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants, its partners, its officers, as the case may be, its
servants, agents, dealers, distributors and all others, acting
for and on its behalf from manufacturing, exporting,
selling, offering for sale, exhibiting, advertising, directly or
CS (COMM) 559/2016 Page 1 of 8




indirectly dealing in any goods/services such as LED
Products, Laptop, Network, Monitors and other
cognate/allied goods/services under the trade mark/trade
name SYSKA or any other identical/deceptively similar
mark to the Plaintiff's trade mark SYSKA with prefix and
suffix or from doing any other thing such as using the
website with the word SYSKA or doing other anything
which is likely to lead to confusion or deception thereby
resulting in passing off the Defendant's goods/services as
those of the Plaintiffs.
b) An Order for permanent injunction restraining the
Defendant, its partners officers, as the case may be, its
servants, agents, dealers, distributors and all others, acting
for and on its behalf from manufacturing, exporting,
selling, offering for sale, exhibiting, advertising
goods/services such as LED Products, Laptop, Network,
Monitors and other cognate/allied goods under the trade
mark/trade name SYSKA or any other deceptive,
label/carton to the Plaintiff's claim of Copyright in the
artistic work titled as SYSKA and its label/carton.
c) An Order for permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants, its partners, its officers, as the case may be, its
servants, agents, dealers, distributors and all others, acting
for and on its behalf from using the identical logo of the
Plaintiff.
d) An Order for permanent injunction restraining the
Defendants, its partners, its officers, as the case may be, its
servants, agents, dealers, distributors and all others, acting
for and on its behalf from falsely representing to the public
that it can provide training/employment in the
organizations associated with the Plaintiffs or providing
training in so called Syska Group.
CS (COMM) 559/2016 Page 2 of 8




e) An order for delivery up of all material including
labels, blocks, dies, strips, cartons, stationery, literature or
any other printed matter bearing the impugned mark for
the purpose of destruction and/or erasure.
f) For an Order of damages made on account of use of
the trade mark SYSKA by the Defendant to the tune of Rs.5
Crores.
Any further Order/Orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case may also be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs and
against the Defendants."
2. At the outset, learned counsel for plaintiffs gives up prayers (e)
and (f) of the prayer clause to the suit. The statement made by learned
counsel for plaintiffs is accepted by this Court and plaintiffs are held
bound by the same.
th
3. Vide order dated 06 April, 2015 this Court granted an ex-parte
ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants. This court further appointed two Local Commissioners to
visit the premises of defendant nos. 1 and 2. The relevant portion of the
ex-parte injunction order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“10. Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, the
defendants, their partners, officers, servants, agents etc.
are restrained from using the trademark/trade name,
"SYSKA" or any other trademark/trade name, either
singularly or in conjunction with other words, which is
deceptively similar/identical to the plaintiffs' trade mark,
,in respect of the goods/services offered by
them.


CS (COMM) 559/2016 Page 3 of 8




4. Since the defendants did not appear despite service, they were
th
proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 28 September, 2015.
5. It has been averred in the plaint that plaintiff no.1 is a partnership
firm and the partners of the plaintiff no.1/firm are the directors of the
plaintiff no.2/company. The plaintiff no.1 is the proprietor of the
trademark SYSKA and has issued licenses in favour of the plaintiff
no.2, authorising them to use the trademark,
. Plaintiff
no.1/firm was constituted in the year 2013 and is stated to be in the
business of manufacturing, selling and distributing LED light products,
mobile phone accessories, services pertaining to downloading of
movies on telephones, insurance of mobile phone etc. The main object
of the said firm is to develop and maintain intellectual properties, i.e.,
trademark, copyright, design, patent etc. and to license the same to its
associate entities. The plaintiff no. 1/firm has devised various marks
such as “SYSKA”, “SYSKA LED light years ahead”, “SYSKA LED”
lounge, “SYSKA ACCESSORIES”, “SYSKA gadget secure” etc.
6. It has been stated in the plaint that the trademark,

was adopted in the year 2013 by the predecessors-in-interest of the
th
plaintiff no.1 and assigned to it, vide Assignment Deeds dated 19
October, 2013. The pending trademark applications were also assigned
by the previous entities to the plaintiff no.1/firm, who has sought
substitution of its name in the records of the Registrar of Trademarks.
The plaintiff no.1/firm has copyright registrations in the trademarks,
“SYSKA ACCESSORIES” and “SYSKA LED LIGHT YEARS
AHEAD” and it has filed various trademark applications.
CS (COMM) 559/2016 Page 4 of 8




7. Learned counsel of the plaintiffs states that the plaintiffs have
sold LED light products worth Rs. 300 crores (approx.). He states that
the licensees of the plaintiff no.1 have sold mobile accessories worth
Rs.68 crores. He further states that the plaintiffs have spent
considerable amounts in advertising and publishing the trade mark
SYSKA and its logo,
.
8. Learned counsel of the plaintiffs contends that the trademark
SYSKA has become a household name and that the people associate the
said mark exclusively with the plaintiffs and its associated entities.
9. Learned counsel for plaintiffs states that the defendants have
hosted a website under the domain name,
www.syskamobilecorporation.com, and are using the plaintiffs SYSKA
logo on the said website and are claiming to have offices in Dubai,
Taiwan, etc. He states, that upon investigation it was found that the
defendants are making such claims with the ulterior motive to cheat the
public and cause damage to the plaintiffs' reputation.
10. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that the defendants are
involved in the business of providing employment to youngsters after
charging a huge fees and are engaging in the practice of assuring
employment in the plaintiffs' firms/companies. He states that the plaintiffs
received information that the defendants had approached various
institutions like K.N.Modi foundation etc. seeking campus placements. He
states that such representations made by the defendants are false to their
knowledge as the plaintiffs have never authorised them for making such
representations.
11. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that the defendants have
CS (COMM) 559/2016 Page 5 of 8




illegally adopted their trade name, SYSKA for undertaking their activities,
including printing t-shirts with the logo and mark,
which is
identical to the plaintiffs' logo.
12. Learned counsel for plaintiffs contends that the adoption of their
trademark/trade name by the defendants is with the motive of deceiving
the public at large.
13. The plaintiffs have filed their ex-parte evidence by way of
affidavit of Mr. Raj Kumar (PW1). The plaintiffs' witness has proved
the aforesaid averments as well as copies of the Copyright registrations
in favour of the plaintiffs as Ex.PW1/10 and Ex.PW1/11 respectively.
The plaintiffs' witness has further proved that the plaintiffs' trademark
SYSKA is being advertised through the medium of television and
magazine as Ex.PW1/18 and Ex.PW1/19 (pages 173-184). The PW1
has also proved the screenshots taken from the defendants' website
under the name of www.syskamobilecorporation.com as Ex.PW1/21.
The plaintiffs' witness has proved the business activities of the
defendants as Ex.PW1/24, Ex.PW1/25 and Ex.PW1/26.
14. Having heard learned counsel for plaintiffs as well as having
perused the papers, this Court is of the view that due to extensive use
over substantial period of time, the plaintiffs' SYSKA mark and
SYSKA logo have acquired reputation and goodwill in the marks in
India.
15. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that without any
explicit permission or licence to use the plaintiffs name or logo, the
defendants have been blatantly using the plaintiffs name and logo on
CS (COMM) 559/2016 Page 6 of 8




their website, amounting to unauthorised reproduction of the plaintiffs'
trademark and copyrighted logo.
16. Further, as the plaintiffs' evidence has gone unrebutted, said
evidence is accepted as true and correct. The Supreme Court in
Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya Vs. Anil Panjwani, AIR 2003 SC 2508 has
held as under:-

pertaining to SYSKA being used by defendants on their website
amounts to infringement of plaintiffs' copyright, is accepted. The use of
illegal trade activities by the defendants is bound to cause incalculable
losses, harm and injury to the plaintiffs and immense public harm.
18. Accordingly, present suit is decreed in accordance with the
paragraph 48(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the plaint along with the actual costs.
The cost shall amongst others include the lawyers’ fees, local
CS (COMM) 559/2016 Page 7 of 8




commissioner’s fee as well as the amounts spent on purchasing the
court fees. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.



MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 11, 2017
rs


CS (COMM) 559/2016 Page 8 of 8