After Veepro Lights Failed To Appear, Delhi HC Decrees Wipro Trademark Suit, Awards ₹4 Lakh In Damages And Costs

In brief

The question

Whether the Court could decree the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC on the basis of the plaintiff’s uncontroverted pleadings where the defendant had not filed a written statement and was proceeded against ex parte

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the plaintiff’s favour and decreed the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.

It also directed

It granted relief in terms of prayers (a)–(d) and awarded damages and costs of ₹4 lakh against the defendant

The decree sheet was directed to be drawn, and the suit and application were disposed of

01Facts

Wipro Enterprises Private Limited sued Veepro Lights and Decor for trademark infringement and passing off, alleging that the defendant used “VEEPRO,” deceptively similar to Wipro’s registered and well-known “WIPRO” mark

¶ 2–3, 9

The Court had granted interim injunctive relief and appointed a Local Commissioner

¶ 10–11

Although the defendant was served, it did not appear or file a written statement; its right to file a written statement was closed, and it was proceeded against ex parte

¶ 12–14, 19

Wipro then applied under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for judgment and decree

¶ 1

02Issues

i.Whether the Court could decree the suit under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC on the basis of the plaintiff’s uncontroverted pleadings where the defendant had not filed a written statement and was proceeded against ex parte

¶ 14–15, 19–21

ii.Whether the plaintiff was entitled to relief for infringement and passing off, and to damages and costs, on the record before the Court

¶ 20–23

03Law Applied

Order VIII Rule 10 CPC permits the Court, where a party required to file a written statement fails to do so, to pronounce judgment or make an appropriate order; the Court relied on this provision read with Section 151 CPC

¶ 1, 21

Under Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, registration is prima facie evidence of the validity of a trademark, and the Court noted the plaintiff’s statutory rights as registered proprietor

¶ 5

The Court also considered the plaintiff’s “WIPRO” mark to be well-known under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act, referring to an earlier order declaring it so

¶ 6

In applying Order VIII Rule 10, the Court relied on *Wow Momo Foods Private Limited v. Wow Chinese*, *Castrol Limited v. Vivek Sen, Trading as Tridev Auto Parts & Anr.*, and *Disney Enterprises I.N.C. & Anr. v. Balraj Muttneja & Ors.*, including the principle that where the defendant is ex parte and the material on record is sufficient, the Court need not require repetitive ex parte evidence

¶ 15–18, 21

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 31 Section 2

04Reasoning

The defendant’s failure to appear or file a written statement left the plaint’s material allegations uncontroverted

¶ 14, 19

The record showed that the plaintiff held registrations for “WIPRO,” that the mark had been declared well-known, and that the defendant used “VEEPRO” for lighting and interior-solution products

¶ 4–9, 20

Applying Order VIII Rule 10 and the cited authorities, the Court found the material sufficient to grant the relief sought without requiring further ex parte evidence

¶ 21

It also considered the plaintiff’s stated court-fee and Local Commissioner expenses, and its decision not to press for damages beyond those costs

¶ 22