Courts may decree ex parte trademark infringement claims without evidence when pleadings and documents suffice.

The plaintiffs alleged that they owned registered trademarks comprising “HAVELLS” and that the defendant used the identical mark for electrical products and as part of its trade name, “Havells PVC Pipes Industry”.

By an interim order dated 29 May 2025, the Court restrained the defendant from using the impugned mark or any identical or deceptively similar mark and appointed a Local Commissioner to inspect the defendant’s premises.

The Commissioner reported that the defendant had imported goods bearing the mark, valued at Rs. 22,86,240, and that the goods had been sold.

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

The plaintiffs sought a decree, relying on the pleadings, documents and Commissioner’s report.

Whether the Court could decree the trademark-infringement suit against the ex parte defendant without directing the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence.

Whether the uncontroverted pleadings and record established the plaintiffs’ entitlement to relief against the defendant’s use of “HAVELLS”.

Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover costs, including court fees and expenses of the Local Commission, in the amount of Rs. 5,00,000.

The Court applied the principle that where a defendant is ex parte and the material on record is sufficient to allow the plaintiff’s claim, the Court need not require ex parte evidence that would merely repeat the plaint.

It relied on Imagine Marketing Private Limited v. M/s Green Accessories Through Its Proprietor and Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 805, which followed Disney Enterprises Inc. v. Balraj Muttneja, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 781, and also referred to S. Oliver Bernd Freier GMBH & CO. KG v. Jaikara Apparels, 210 (2014) DLT 381, and United Coffee House v. Raghav Kalra, 2013 (55) PTC 414 (Del).

The Court treated the plaintiffs’ registered trademark rights as protectable against the defendant’s use of an identical mark, and considered the uncontroverted record sufficient to grant relief.

The defendant’s failure to appear or file a written statement left the plaintiffs’ material uncontroverted. The Local Commissioner’s report supported the allegation that the defendant had imported and sold goods under the impugned mark.

Applying Imagine Marketing and the authorities it cited, the Court held that further ex parte evidence was unnecessary where the record was already sufficient.

The Court found that the defendant’s use of “HAVELLS” on its goods, domain name and trade name was identical to the plaintiffs’ mark and domain name, and concluded that the plaintiffs were entitled to the reliefs claimed in the specified prayer clauses.

For monetary relief, the plaintiffs confined their claim to costs; the Court considered the court fee, Local Commissioner’s fee and other expenses in fixing the award.

It also awarded the plaintiffs Rs. 5,00,000 towards costs and directed that a decree sheet be drawn; the suit and pending applications were disposed of.