Court grants permanent injunction and damages in trademark infringement case for phonetic similarity, upholding proprietary rights.

The court granted the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction and damages in a trademark infringement case where the defendants used a similar mark to the plaintiff's. The court found phonetic similarity between the marks, upheld the plaintiff's proprietary rights, and issued a permanent injunction against passing off. Token damages of Rs. 3 lakhs were awarded to the plaintiff due to the defendants' deliberate absence and lack of defense during the proceedings. The decree included the injunction against the defendants from using the infringing mark and passing off goods as the plaintiff's, along with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

---

---

Issues:
Plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction for trademark 'DAAWAT' & damages. Defendants used 'DAVAT' similar to 'DAAWAT'. Plaintiff proved rights acquisition through assignment deed & sales invoices. Defendants stopped appearing, proceeded ex parte. Plaintiff granted interim relief. Court found phonetic similarity, granted injunction against defendants. Plaintiff claimed damages, referred to similar cases. Court awarded token damages of Rs. 3 lakhs. Decree passed for permanent injunction & damages in favor of plaintiff.

Analysis:
1. Trademark Infringement and Passing Off: Plaintiff sought permanent injunction for trademark 'DAAWAT'. Plaintiff proved adoption rights through assignment deed and sales invoices. Defendants used 'DAVAT' similar to 'DAAWAT', leading to confusion. Court found phonetic similarity, granted injunction against defendants from using 'DAVAT' or any similar trademark. Court upheld plaintiff's proprietary rights in 'DAAWAT' and issued permanent injunction against passing off.

2. Evidence and Proceedings: Plaintiff proved rights acquisition through assignment deed and sales invoices. Defendants initially appeared but later stopped, proceeding ex parte. Plaintiff granted interim relief. Court allowed secondary evidence for misplaced documents. Plaintiff's witness confirmed averments and proved acquisition of rights in 'DAAWAT'. Court considered lack of defense from defendants in assessing damages.

3. Damages: Plaintiff claimed damages due to defendants' use of 'DAVAT'. Plaintiff referred to similar cases for assessing damages. Court awarded token damages of Rs. 3 lakhs considering defendants' deliberate absence preventing exact assessment. Court relied on precedents for similar situations and granted damages in favor of plaintiff.

4. Decree: Court passed decree for permanent injunction against defendants from using 'DAVAT' or any similar trademark. Decree also included injunction against passing off goods as plaintiff's. Court awarded damages of Rs. 3 lakhs to plaintiff. Plaintiff entitled to costs. Decree sheet to be drawn accordingly, with no further directions needed for related applications.

In conclusion, the judgment granted the plaintiff's request for permanent injunction and damages due to trademark infringement and passing off by the defendants. The court found in favor of the plaintiff based on evidence presented, lack of defense from defendants, and phonetic similarity between the trademarks. The award of token damages and costs to the plaintiff was supported by precedents and the defendants' actions during the proceedings.

---