In this post, we are looking at recent Trademark Infringement Cases where courts decided to give the plaintiffs their litigation costs. All three cases are about trademark infringement and include orders stopping the defendants from using the copied trademarks or packaging.
Case notes
Angsana Vs. Angsana Thai Spa: The Delhi High Court grants permanent injunction against the use of the mark ‘Angsana Thai Spa’, and awards costs of about 13 Lakh Rupees to the plaintiff.
In a case involving the popular mark, Angsana, known for hotels and resorts, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the use of the ‘Angsana Thai Spa’ by the defendant. The Court also ordered the transfer of the domain name https://angsanathaispabangalore.com/ to the plaintiff. Additionally, the Court also awarded actual costs of Rs.12,82,580/-, which was incurred by the plaintiff for the case.
Citation: Banyan Tree Holdings Limited Vs. Angsana Thai SPA and Ors. [CS (COMM) 912/2022, CCP(O) 29/2023 and I.A. 15523/2023]
‘TIME’ trademark infringed by ‘Time Tirupati’, says Delhi High Court.
In a case involving the trademark TIME for training institutes, the Delhi High Court stated that the use of ‘TIME Tirupati’ by the defendant amounts to infringement. The Court therefore granted a permanent injunction against the use of the mark by the defendant and also granted costs to the defendant. The plaintiff argued in the case that its trademark is well recognized among consumers and that it had 190 training institutes bearing the mark in 99 cities/towns in India.
Citation: Triumphant Institute of Management Education Pvt. Ltd. Vs. T.I.M.E. Tirupati & Ors.[CS(COMM) 320/2022 & I.A. 7567/2022]
Su-Mag Vs. Gudmag for Pharma Products: The Delhi High Court injuncts the use of Gudmag and packaging, and orders the defendant to pay Rs. 5 lakhs.
In a case involving the trademarks, Su-Mag and Gudmag for pharmaceutical compositions, the Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff, who had been using the packaging and the mark since 1967. The Court stated that the packaging of the products was strikingly similar and that the marks were also similar. While granting the injunction, the Court granted damages of 3 Lakh Rupees, and costs of 2 Lakh Rupees to the plaintiff. As no data for the calculation of damages was available, the Court calculated the damages based on a reasonable assessment of the same.
Citation: Hind Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Chawla and Ors. [CS (COMM) 180/2018, I.As. 10823/2006, 12232/2006, 12233/2006 and 1136/2007]
Conclusion
As is evident from these decisions, courts award costs either along with damages or independently of any findings with respect to damages/compensation. An award of costs may be either based on the actual litigation expense of the Plaintiff or based on reasonable costs for the proceedings.
Disclaimer
The case notes in this blog post have been written by Trademark attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases, or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, speak with an IP expert/attorney – contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
