The Delhi High Court passed an order against a manufacturer of motorcycle parts after finding that the company had engaged in trademark infringement and had also obstructed the execution of a court-appointed search. The Court held that the conduct of the defendant amounted to contempt of court and warranted monetary consequences. In addition to addressing the contempt, the Court also granted damages in favour of the trademark owner, thereby disposing of the infringement suit along with the connected contempt proceedings.
The dispute arose from a suit filed by Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd., which holds rights over the “HERO” trademark, alleging that the defendant was manufacturing and selling counterfeit goods bearing the same mark. An ex parte ad-interim injunction had earlier been granted restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in goods using the “HERO” mark or any deceptively similar mark. A Local Commissioner was appointed by the Court to carry out a search and seizure operation at the defendant’s premises in order to enforce the injunction.
During the execution of the commission, a substantial quantity of infringing spare parts and packaging material bearing the “HERO” mark was found at the premises. However, the execution of the commission was met with serious resistance. It was reported that the defendant’s representatives obstructed the Local Commissioner and accompanying counsel, used abusive language, issued threats, and attempted to interfere with the lawful execution of the Court’s order. It was further alleged that some employees attempted to destroy infringing goods by throwing them into a metal burner and setting them on fire in the presence of the Local Commissioner, with the apparent intention of defeating the search and concealing evidence.
The plaintiff brought these facts to the notice of the Court and sought action for wilful disobedience of the injunction and interference with the judicial process. Although the defendant tendered an unconditional apology for the incident, the High Court held that such conduct could not be overlooked merely on the basis of an apology. The Court emphasized that a Local Commissioner is an officer of the Court and that any obstruction or intimidation during the execution of judicial orders strikes at the authority of the judiciary and undermines the rule of law.
Considering the seriousness of the conduct, the Court held the defendant guilty of contempt and directed it to pay an amount of ₹2.5 lakh as a consequence of the contemptuous acts. This amount was directed to be paid to a non-governmental organization, as a penal measure reflecting the breach of judicial authority and interference with the administration of justice.
The Court also addressed the substantive issue of trademark infringement. The defendant submitted that it would comply with the injunction and undertook not to engage in any further infringing activity. On the basis of this undertaking, and with the consent of the plaintiff, the Court proceeded to dispose of the suit by awarding damages and costs. The Court observed that even where precise proof of actual loss is not placed on record, damages may be awarded to compensate for infringement, investigation expenses, and the costs incurred in enforcing legal rights.
Accordingly, the Court directed the defendant to pay an additional sum of ₹2.5 lakh to Hero Investcorp Pvt. Ltd. towards damages and costs. This amount was intended to cover the losses caused by the counterfeiting activities, expenses related to the appointment and execution of the Local Commissioner, and the legal proceedings necessitated by the defendant’s conduct. The Court also permanently restrained the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in counterfeit goods bearing the “HERO” trademark or any deceptively similar mark.
In effect, the defendant was ordered to pay a total amount of ₹5 lakh, comprising the sum directed to be paid for contempt and the damages awarded to the trademark owner. The High Court’s order underscored the seriousness with which courts view both trademark infringement and interference with judicial processes, and reaffirmed that such conduct attracts not only injunctive relief but also monetary sanctions aimed at deterrence and compensation.
Through this decision, the Delhi High Court reinforced the principle that infringement of intellectual property rights and obstruction of court-appointed officers will invite strict consequences. The order reflects the Court’s resolve to protect trademark rights and to ensure that judicial orders are respected and effectively enforced.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.