Nominal damages are justifiable for proven dishonest passing off despite lack of actual loss evidence.

The Respondent, daughter of the late Dr. Vijai Rikh, claimed inherited goodwill in the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’, which her father had operated at a Janakpuri premises since 1976.

The Appellant was inducted as a tenant into the same premises via a registered lease deed dated 17.03.2022 for residential purposes.

The Respondent alleged that the Appellant unauthorizedly used the trade name ‘Dr. Rikh’s Clinic’, posed as the late Dr. Vijai Rikh on digital platforms like Just Dial and Google, and misrepresented the Respondent’s professional association on his letterhead to mislead the public.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Respondent, granting a permanent injunction, delivery up of materials, and damages of Rs. 1 lakh.

The Appellant challenged the award of damages and the finding of passing off, while the appeal itself faced a 64-day re-filing delay.

1. Whether the delay of 64 days in re-filing the appeal should be condoned in the absence of material particulars proving ‘sufficient cause’.

2. Whether the Trial Court erred in awarding damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the absence of evidence of actual quantified loss.

3. Whether the Appellant’s actions constituted passing off despite the Respondent not being a medical practitioner herself.

The Court applied Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Section 96 of the CPC regarding appellate jurisdiction.

For condonation of delay, it relied on the 'sufficient cause' principle from Government of Maharashtra v. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd.

Regarding passing off, the court applied the "Classical Trinity" (goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage) as established in common law.

For damages, the court referred to Rule 20 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division (IPD) Rules, 2022, and precedents such as Koninlijke Philips v. Amazestore and Aero Club v. M/s Sahara Belts, which allow for nominal/deterrent damages in cases of proven dishonest infringement.

The Court first dismissed the application for condonation of delay, noting that the application lacked material particulars to justify the 64-day lapse.

On merits, the Court found the Appellant’s conduct explicitly fraudulent; he not only used the trade name but also occupied the same physical premises as the deceased doctor and used the deceased's name on online search engines to deceive patients.

The Court rejected the argument that the Respondent suffered no loss because she was not a doctor, holding that as the proprietor of the trade name, she was entitled to compensation for unauthorized use based on what a reasonable license fee might have been.

The Court emphasized that in cases of "proven dishonest actions," nominal damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- serve as a necessary deterrent and do not require proof of actual quantified loss.

It held that the Trial Court’s findings on passing off were sound and the award of Rs. 1,00,000/- in damages was nominal and justified given the Appellant's mala fide intent.

The Court maintained the decree of permanent injunction and delivery up.

Additionally, the Court imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the Appellant to be paid to the Respondent.