CS(OS) 2436/2007 Page 1 of 4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CS(OS) 2436/2007 % Date of decision: 27th March, 2009 LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED ….… Plaintiff Through: Ms Purnima Sethi and Mr Darpan Wadhwa, Advocates Versus LAKSHMI NARASIMHA TEXTILES PRIVATE LIMITED ....... Defendant Through: Ex-parte CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. The plaintiff being the registered owner of the Mark “L&T” in various classes including in class 23 for yarn, threads and wool, has instituted this suit for the relief of injunction, delivery, damages and costs. The cause of action for the suit was the appearance of an advertisement before acceptance in the Trade Mark Journal for registration of the mark “LNT” at the instance of the defendant. The defendant in the said advertisement has claimed user since 9th January, 2006 and a registration was claimed in relation to yarn and threads for textile use. 2. Notice of the suit was ordered to be served on the defendant. The defendant was served both by Registered Post AD as well as by ordinary process. On 13th February, 2008, though only the presence of the counsel for the plaintiff is recorded, but time was sought for CS(OS) 2436/2007 Page 2 of 4 compromise. However, subsequently on 19th August, 2008 none appeared for the defendant. The defendant also did not file any written statement/reply. The defendant was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte and remains ex parte. On that date, on the application of the plaintiff for interim relief, the defendant, its Directors and agents were also restrained during the pendency of the suit from using the trademark/name/word/abbreviation „LNT‟ or other deceptively similar name/mark in relation to sale, exhibiting, advertising of any of their products. 3. The plaintiff has, in its ex parte evidence, filed affidavit by way of examination in chief, of its constituted attorney. He has proved the Memorandum and Articles of Associations of the plaintiff as Exhibit PW-1/2, authorization in his favour as Exhibit PW-1/1, the registration certificates of the mark L&T in various classes collectively as Exhibit PW-1/3(Colly), its annual report for the year 2006-2007 showing the diversity of its businesses as Exhibit PW-1/4, its advertisement as Exhibit PW-1/5, the advertisement of the defendant in the Trade Mark Journal dated 1st July, 2007 as Exhibit PW-1/6 and the legal notice and the reply thereto of the defendant as Exhibit PW-1/7 and PW1/8. The evidence remains unrebutted. 4. Though the defendant has not contested the suit, a perusal of the reply Exhibit PW-1/8 sent by the defendant to the plaintiff in response to the notice of the plaintiff got sent prior to the institution of the suit, shows that the defendant had therein only vaguely denied the averments in the legal notice and had stated that a detailed reply will be sent in due course but no further reply is stated to have been sent. CS(OS) 2436/2007 Page 3 of 4 5. The plaintiff has also proved that besides the registration of the mark L&T, it has also registered its mark as “LT” in various classes. 6. In my view, the mark adopted by the defendant LNT is deceptively similar to the mark L&T and LT of the plaintiff. The mark of the plaintiff is in use since long prior to the date of adoption claimed by the defendant. The mark L&T of the plaintiff is in fact pronounced as LNT only. The counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon Larsen & Toubro Limited vs. M/s. Lachmi Narain Trades 149 (2008) DLT 46 (DB) where the Division Bench of this court in relation to electrical goods had restrained the defendants therein from using the trademark/name LNT/ELENTE or other deceptively similar name in relation to its goods. The plaintiff in fact, in relation to the goods subject matter of that proceedings also did not even have a registration. Here the plaintiff is the registered proprietor in relation to goods, with respect whereto the defendant claims to be using the mark LNT. The mark “LNT” adopted by plaintiff is found to be infringing registered mark “L & T” of the plaintiff. 7. I am therefore satisfied that the plaintiff has made out a case for the grant of the relief of permanent injunction. 8. The next issue is with respect to the claim of the plaintiff for damages. The plaintiff has claimed damaged of Rs. 21 lacs. However, the affidavit bereft of any basis and particulars with respect thereto. 9. However, the action of the defendant of adopting the mark LNT and/or of applying for registration thereof is found to be dishonest and an attempt to reap advantage of the goodwill of the plaintiff and to create an impression that it goods were from the house of the plaintiff. In todays date, even if the plaintiff is not to by CS(OS) 2436/2007 Page 4 of 4 carrying on business of in textiles under its trade mark LNT would not make any difference. Over the last few years the way large corporate as the plaintiff have evolved and with acquisition and mergers becoming common, the possibility of the plaintiff which is already holding a registration of the mark in the said class of goods, entering into the said business cannot be ruled out. Moreover as far as public is concerned it perceives the presence of the plaintiff in diverse businesses and upon seeing the mark LNT in relation to textiles, the consumers and public at large is likely to be believe that the said goods are from the house of the plaintiff. Even though the defendants have chosen not to appear but for their such attempts, I deem it appropriate to impose nominal damages of Rs. 5 lacs against the defendant, considering that the defendant claimed user of the mark since 9th January, 2006 i.e. for over two years prior to interim order dated 19th August, 2008. 10. The suit of the plaintiff is thus decreed in terms of the prayer paragraph (a) and (b) of the plaint and for recovery of damages in the sum of Rs. 5 lacs, against the defendant. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of the suit from the defendant. Counsel‟s fees assessed at Rs. 50,000/-. Decree sheet be drawn up. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) March 27, 2009 rb