- 1 - 902.s.1533.03 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.1533 OF 2003 RAYMOND LIMITED ..Plaintiff -Versus- Pantaloon Retail (I) Limited & Anr. ..Defendants .......... Mr.Salil Shah a/w. Mr.Melvyn Fernandes, Ms.Cynthia Pereira i/b Rajani Associates for the Plaintiff. Mr.Manish Saurashtri i/b Shantilal & Co. for the Defendants. .......... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 20TH AUGUST 2011. P.C. 1 This is an action for infringement and for passing off. 2 The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the word mark ‘RAYMOND’. The sales figures mentioned in Exhibit ‘C’ to the plaint establishes the enormous reputation and goodwill developed by the plaintiff. The mark is also a prominent part of the plaintiff’s corporate name. 3 There is no written statement. There is nothing on record that militates against what is stated in the plaint. I am inclined to accept the - 2 - 902.s.1533.03 averments and submissions as correct. 4 Mr.Saurashtri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no.1-Retail Supplier in whose premises the goods manufactured by defendant no.2 are sold, makes a statement that defendant no.1 has stopped keeping the second defendant’s goods using the mark ‘RAYMEN’ and it has no intention of doing so in future either. The statement is accepted and it is so ordered. 5 The impugned mark ‘RAYMEN’ is visually and phonetically deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark ‘RAYMOND’. In fact phonetically the two marks are almost identical. 6 The plaintiff has therefore established the case of infringement and for passing off. 7 In view of the reasonable stand taken by defendant no.1, at least, at this stage, I am not inclined to pass any orders for damages against defendant no.1. 8 Defendant no.2 has remained absent throughout. The plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs.5 lacs. The defendants, as stated above has - 3 - 902.s.1533.03 failed to appear. I am inclined, therefore, to draw an adverse inference against the defendants for not having remained present and not filing the written statement to the effect that they have remained absent knowing that their records would indicate that the plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of what is claimed. 9 The suit is decreed as against defendant no.2 in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (e) and (i). Costs to be quantified as per rules. Prayer (b) however, shall be implemented only after the expiry of a period of eight weeks after the period of limitation for filing the appeal against this order expires. 10 The suit is decreed as against defendant no.1 in terms of prayers (a) and (b). Prayer (e) is not granted in view of the statement that defendant no. 1 does not have any goods bearing the impugned mark. Needless to clarify that in the event that of the defendants obtaining goods bearing the plaintiff’s mark legally and validly, they will not be prevented from dealing with them. Refund of court fees, if any, as per rules. - 4 - 902.s.1533.03 -