1 s1192-06 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.1192 OF 2006 Jyoti (India) Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. ....Plaintiff V/s. Mahesh Brothers Sales ....Defendant Mr.Vinod Bhagat with Mr.Punit Jani i/b G.S. Hegde & V.A. Bhagat for the Plaintiff. None for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is a suit for infringement of trade mark and copyright and for passing off. 2. The plaintiff is a registered proprietor of the mark “NIRALI”, written in a stylized manner. The defendants have used the identical mark. The defendants have also written the mark in the same stylized manner, hence the claim for infringement of copyright. 3. The sales of the products by the plaintiff under the said mark in the year 1992-1993 was almost Rs.3.00 crores. The same increased over the years. During the year 2004-2005, the sales were over Rs.26.00 crores. The promotional expenses also increased during 2 s1192-06 the corresponding period from about Rs.11.00 lacs to over Rs.70.00 lacs. 4. The defendants are absent. There is no written statement. This is despite the fact that when the interlocutory order was passed, they were absent. 5. The plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs.20.00 lacs. There is no evidence to substantiate the claim of Rs.20.00 lacs. I am however, inclined to grant only nominal damages in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. I am also inclined to draw an adverse inference against the defendants on account of their having remained absent throughout to the effect that they have remained absent, knowing that if their records had been produced, the plaintiff’s case even regarding damages, would have been established. 6. In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (d), and (j). Costs to be quantified as per rules. Refund, if any, as per rules.