Trademark counterfeiting and passing off justify injunction, destruction of goods, and damages without exact loss proof

Deliberate use of the mark HERO HONDA, including the logo and deceptively similar packaging for motorcycle parts, was treated as trademark infringement and passing off because the evidence showed copying calculated to mislead purchasers and exploit the plaintiff's goodwill. The plaintiff's long use, registration of the mark and stylised logo, and rights in the artistic works supported permanent injunctive relief. The seized infringing goods were held liable to destruction, and damages were awarded despite the absence of exact loss proof because counterfeiting cases may justify compensatory and punitive damages. Costs were also granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the defendant's sale of motorcycle parts under the mark HERO HONDA, with or without the logo, and in packaging identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's, amounted to trademark infringement and passing off warranting a permanent injunction; (ii) Whether the plaintiff was entitled to delivery up of the seized infringing goods, damages, and costs.

Issue (i): Whether the defendant's sale of motorcycle parts under the mark HERO HONDA, with or without the logo, and in packaging identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's, amounted to trademark infringement and passing off warranting a permanent injunction.

Analysis: The plaintiff established long and extensive use of the mark HERO HONDA, registered proprietorship of the mark and stylised logo, and authorship/assignment of the artistic works used in the logo and packaging. The evidence showed that the defendant had copied the mark and logo and was selling goods in a manner calculated to deceive purchasers into believing that the goods originated from the plaintiff. The court treated this as counterfeiting and as conduct causing both commercial loss and injury to goodwill.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff, and a permanent injunction against further use of the impugned mark, logo, and deceptively similar packaging was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff was entitled to delivery up of the seized infringing goods, damages, and costs.

Analysis: The seized goods had been released on superdari, and the court held that they were liable to be destroyed. On damages, the defendant's deliberate absence from the proceedings prevented any account-based inquiry, but that did not defeat relief. The court accepted that in trademark counterfeiting cases damages may be awarded even without exact proof, and relied on the need for both compensatory and punitive damages to deter unlawful trade practices and protect the consuming public. Costs were also considered appropriate in view of the nature of the infringement.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the plaintiff, and delivery up, damages of Rs. 5 lakhs, and costs were granted.

Final Conclusion: The suit succeeded in substance, with reliefs of injunction, delivery up for destruction, damages, and costs granted to protect the plaintiff's proprietary rights and to deter deliberate trademark counterfeiting.

Ratio Decidendi: In a case of proved trademark infringement and passing off by deliberate counterfeiting, the court may grant permanent injunction, delivery up of infringing goods, and damages including punitive damages even where exact loss is not separately proved, particularly when the defendant stays away from the proceedings.

---