Permanent injunction granted for trademark infringement & copyright violation. Defendant undertakings enforced.

The court granted a permanent injunction against defendant no.2 for trademark infringement, copyright, passing off, and rendition of accounts based on their undertakings not to import goods bearing the LOTUS mark without plaintiff's permission. Defendant no.1 was allowed to confiscate or destroy seized goods. Defendant no.3, proceeded ex parte, faced a decree in line with specific prayers from the plaint, including costs. The plaintiff was permitted to file exact costs incurred, and the suit was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

Issues:
1. Permanent injunction for trademark infringement, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts, and directions.
2. Defendant no.2's involvement in importing branded goods.
3. Defendant no.2's undertaking regarding future import of goods bearing the LOTUS mark.
4. Decree against defendant no.2 based on undertakings.
5. Defendant no.3 proceeded ex parte.
6. Plaintiff's relief against defendant no.3.

Analysis:

1. The suit was filed for a permanent injunction to restrain infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts, and directions. A previous order had restrained the defendants from selling goods under the trademark LOTUS. The counsel for defendant no.2 admitted to an order for unbranded goods but clarified that branded goods bearing other marks were found in the import consignment.

2. Defendant no.2 stated that they had not imported any goods bearing the LOTUS mark and agreed to not import such goods without the plaintiff's permission in the future. The plaintiff, considering these statements, did not press for any other relief against defendant no.2, which was accepted by the court.

3. The court decreed the suit against defendant no.2 based on the statements and undertakings made by their counsel. Defendant no.2 was held bound by these undertakings, and defendant no.1 was permitted to confiscate or destroy the seized goods with the LOTUS mark.

4. Defendant no.3 had been proceeded ex parte earlier. The plaintiff, at this stage, confined the relief sought against defendant no.3 to specific prayers mentioned in the plaint. Citing a previous court ruling, the judge decided not to relegate the plaintiff to lead ex parte evidence against defendant no.3 due to the lack of appearance or denial of documents by the defendant.

5. Consequently, the court decreed the suit against defendant no.3 in accordance with the specific prayers from the plaint, along with costs that included lawyers' fees and court fees. The plaintiff was given liberty to file the exact costs incurred during the suit, and the registry was directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly, leading to the disposal of the suit.

---