At, High Court of Delhi
By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
For the Plaintiff: Krutika Vijay, Aditya Gupta, Advocates. For the Defendants: None.
1. As per the service report, Defendant No.1 has been served, however, there is no appearance. Defendant No.2 is the Director of the Defendant no.1 Company. Since there is no appearance for Defendant no.1, the said Defendants are proceeded ex-parte.
2. The present suit has been filed under the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. Since the Defendants are ex-parte, there is no defence, the court is proceeding to pass the judgment.
3. The Plaintiff started using the mark ‘Vistara’ in India since 2014 in respect of its airline services. The Plaintiff has registered trademarks in Singapore and in other jurisdictions. The Plaintiff pleads that the word ‘Vistara’ is synonymous with its business and is distinctive of the quality of services rendered by the Plaintiff.
4. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of various trademarks and logos for the word ‘Vistara’ in class 12, 39, 27, 25, 28 and 21. The list of countries in which the word ‘Vistara’ is registered as a trademark is set out in paragraph 12 of the plaint. The Plaintiff has used the purple/aubergine colour on its website, as also in the decor of its aircraft cabins and in its logo.
5. Defendant No.1 is a company incorporated with the name Vistara International Private Limited and is carrying on ticketing and travel services. The Defendants claim to have registered the following domain names:
6. Clearly, the trademark ‘Vistara’ is identical to that of the Plaintiff and the services are also cognate and allied. The word ‘Vistara’ being a registered trademark cannot be used by the Defendants, especially in respect of travel and allied services. The use of the trademark ‘Vistara’ constitutes infringement of the Plaintiff’s statutory rights. Considering that in the travel industry a large number of services are rendered online, there is a very high chance of customers being confused into mistaking that the Defendants are either a branch of the Plaintiff or are affiliated/sponsored by the Plaintiff. The same is likely to result in confusion and deception.
7. The mark is identical, services are identical and class of customers is identical. This being a case of triple identity, a decree for permanent injunction as prayed for is liable to be granted. The print out of the website of the Defendants also shows that the Defendants were initially using a different layout and different colour scheme, but recently switched to purple/aubergine colour, which is similar to the website of the Plaintiff. This clearly shows the dishonesty of the Defendants.
8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Defendants are injuncted in terms of prayer (a) to (d) of the plaint. The Plaintiff is permitted to seek to transfer of the domain names www.vistara.tours and www.vistaratours.in and any other domain names consisting of the word `Vistara’ registered by the Defendants, as mentioned in prayer (f) of the plaint. The Plaintiff is permitted to approach the Registrar of Companies and seek cancellation/modification of the corporate name of Defendant No.1 by deletion of the word ‘Vistara’ from the said corporate name.
9. The trademark ‘Vistara’ appears to have been adopted by the Defendants in 2016, as is clear from the WHOIS printout for the Defendant’s domain names. The Defendant having used the mark ‘Vistara’ for the last two years and h
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
aving registered a company in the name of Vistara International Private Limited, are thus liable to pay costs and damages. 10. The suit is decreed for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs as damages and court fee deposited to the tune of Rs.1 lakh is also liable to be paid by the Defendants as costs. 11. The suit is accordingly decreed. Decree sheet be drawn up. All pending applications also stand disposed of.