JUDGMENT : A.K. Sikri, J. 1. The plaintiff has filed the instant suit for permanent injunction, infringement of trademark, copyright, passing off, damages against the defendants. 2. Perusal of the plaint will show the following case set up by the plaintiff. In or about 1948 the plaintiff was incorporated with the name Honda as the key and principal feature of its trademark since its inception. The mark/name Honda was adopted by the plaintiff in order to distinguish its goods and the trade identity and by way of extensive global use subsequently the mark/name Honda has become distinctive of the plaintiff all over the world including India. The plaintiffs main line of operation includes manufacture and sale of motorcycles, motorcars, power equipments as well as providing financial services. All these goods are sold and/ or services are rendered under the mark/name Honda. The plaintiff is currently the -seller of largest number of motorcycles in the world. 3. By virtue of initial adoption, as well as extensive use subsequently, the mark/name Honda has become exclusively associated with the plaintiff in the eyes of the consumers. Honda has also become house mark of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is included in the list of Global 1000 Companies compiled by the well-known business journal, Business Week, ranking 160th in 1995, 97th in 1996, 89th in 1997. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiffs mark/name Honda is a well known trademark within the meaning of Section 11 of Trade Marks Act, 1999. That the plaintiff submits that the trade mark Honda has been registered in various classes in over 157 countries including India in the name of the plaintiff. The details of the said registrations in respect of the mark Honda as mentioned in para 7 of the plaint as under: "The trade mark Honda has been registered in various classes in over 157 countries, including India in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has many registrations and pending trade mark applications for the mark Honda in all the 34 classes to the classification of goods under Schedule IV of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules, 1959, in India. In particular, the following registrations are relevant: Mark Regd. No. Class Status Date Honda 201233 12 Registered 14.3.1961 Honda 225243 7 Registered 9.11.1964 Honda 422777 7 Registered 4.6.1984 Honda 393803 12 Registered 5.8.1982" 4. In particular, the following registrations are relevant: Mark Regd. No. Class Status Date Honda 201233 12 Registered 14.3.1961 Honda 225243 7 Registered 9.11.1964 Honda 422777 7 Registered 4.6.1984 Honda 393803 12 Registered 5.8.1982" 4. The plaintiff claims that by the use by the plaintiff of the trademark Honda in India has been continuous, extensive and considerable. The trade mark Honda has been used either as Honda per se or in combination with the plaintiffs other mark or the marks of its Joint Venture Partners in India such as Hero Honda, Sriram Honda etc. The use of Honda, in India has been on goods as varied as motor cycles, motor cars, power-filters for use in agriculture, power generators etc. According to the plaintiff such goodwill and reputation of the mark Honda vis-a-vis the plaintiff has made the said mark distinctive of the plaintiff in the eyes of the consumers in India. Whenever the purchasing public comes across any goods bearing the mark Honda, they automatically assume such mark to be of the plaintiffs origin and the said mark has become symbol of high quality products. 5. It is further averred that in the year 2000, the plaintiff learnt that the defendant No. 1 trading as Sharad Engineering Industries, Ahmedabad, was indulging in infringing activities by unauthorisedly adopting and using the trademark Honda of the defendant on goods such as plastic valves, water foot valves, air valves, gate valves and non return valves. The plaintiffs trademark attorney D.P. Ahuja and Co. served a legal notice upon the defendants to cease and desist forthwith from using the trademark Honda of the plaintiff. However, despite receiving the said notice the defendants failed to reply. Thereafter the plaintiff sent a reminder. In response to the plaintiffs reminder the defendants replied making false and untenable claims. 6. The plaintiff has also filed application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC seeking ad interim injunction. When the matter was listed on 31st May, 2002 for preliminary hearing, while issuing summons in the plaint and notice in the application for 1st August, 2002, this Court granted exparte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing or offering for sale Foot Valves and Return Valves or any other item with the trade mark 'Honda' or any other mark which may be identical with or deceptively similar to the trade mark 'Honda'. Repeated notices were sent to the defendants because of non-service. Ultimately when the notices were issued for 18th November, 2004, both the defendants, as per the service report refused to receive the summons sent to them through registered post. Therefore, the Joint Registrar fixed the matter before the Court and on 7th December, 2004 also when no body appeared in the matter, the Court directed that defendants be proceeded exparte. The plaintiff was directed to file affidavits for exparte evidence. Affidavit of Mr. Sudhir D. Ahuja, constituted attorney of the plaintiff has been filed who has affirmed various averments made in the plaint and noted above and proved as many as 11 documents as Ex. PW 1/1 to PW 1/11. Ex. PW 1/1 is the certified copy of the power of attorney executed by the plaintiff being in favour of Mr. Sudhir D. Ahuja. Ex. PW 1/2 is the corporate brouchure of the plaintiff which explains in detail the plaintiffs global activities including its activities in India. Ex. PW 1/3 are relevant extracts from various magazines like Business Week, National Geographic, Asia Incorporated, Asia-V and Forbes etc. Ex. PW 1/4 (colly.) are the copies of the registration/renewal certificates and application for registration and general advertisements for the mark 'Honda City' (H device and City). Ex. PW 1/5 are the copies of the documents where the advertisements of its various products in India have appeared. Ex. PW 1/6 (colly.) is a list of publication of caution notice along with the copy of the said notice as published in the Economic Times and Hindustan Times (New Delhi edition), Tribune, (Chandigarh edition) as well as Punjab Kesari, Gujarat Times, Auto India and Motoring Overdrive. Ex. PW 1/7 is the seize and desist notice dated 10th August, 2000 sent to the defendants. Ex. PW 1/8 is the reminder dated 22nd January, 2001 and Ex. PW 1/9 is the reply of the defendants dated 19th February, 2001. Ex. PW 1/10 is the copy of the photograph of specimen product bearing trademark Honda manufactured by defendant No. 2 and Ex. PW 1/11 is the outer packaging of the defendant's said product. From the aforesaid unrebutted and undisputed testimony, one can safely concluded that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark Honda which is duly registered in India. Under Section 28 of the Act exclusive rights are conferred in favour of the plaintiff. PW 1/11 is the outer packaging of the defendant's said product. From the aforesaid unrebutted and undisputed testimony, one can safely concluded that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark Honda which is duly registered in India. Under Section 28 of the Act exclusive rights are conferred in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has built up reputation and goodwill in the market in respect of its mark Honda and hence the plaintiff is entitled to restrain any one of the who uses the said mark/name Honda even in respect of dissimilar goods/services under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Therefore, under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act the defendant is guilty of infringement of trademark. Hence, it is a clear case of infringement of trademark in view of the statutory provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The defendant's adoption and use of the trademark Honda in respect of return valves, flout valves etc. is fraudulent and calculated to deceive and create confusion amongst traders and consumers. The goods on which the trademark Honda is applied by the defendants are valves of various description. Such goods are related to the automobile and power industry in which the plaintiff is actively present. By use of the said marks in respect of such valves etc. an impression is sought to be created in the minds of the purchasing public that the defendant's business is the business of the plaintiff or that the defendants are part of the plaintiffs organisation or a branch or division of the plaintiff and that their goods are the goods of the plaintiff. In fact, such an injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiff in the case of Honda Motors Co. Ltd. v. Charanjit Singh and Ors., 101 (2002) DLT 359=2003 PTC (17) 403, wherein the Court has observed as under: "The plaintiff has placed sufficient material on record to show that it has acquired distinctiveness and goodwill in the mark Honda which has become a household mark of the plaintiff. The mark Honda connotes distinctiveness, reputation, quality and goodwill acquired by the plaintiff over a number of years and is understood by the customers as associated with the plaintiff. The mark Honda connotes distinctiveness, reputation, quality and goodwill acquired by the plaintiff over a number of years and is understood by the customers as associated with the plaintiff. Defendants started using the mark Honda to derive benefit from the reputation and goodwill enjoyed by the plaintiff and their products under the said mark, thereby perpetrating fraud and deception on the unwary customers by passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. I have no hesitation in taking a prima facie view that the defendants have adopted the mark Honda deliberately with an intention of creating a subtle association between their activities and that of the plaintiff. The user of the trademark Honda by the defendants cannot be said to be an honest and concurrent user, as claimed by them. The trade mark Honda being of global reputation, its user by the defendants is likely to cause not only deception in the minds of the ordinary customers but may also cause injury to the plaintiff company. In this view of the matter, it will be necessary to restrain the defendants from using the trademark Honda for their products till the matter is decided on merits after trial." 7. I am also of the opinion that the plaintiff will suffer incalculable harm and injury to its goodwill, reputation and business in general if the defendant is allowed to carry on their aforesaid illegal activities in complete disregard to the statutory and common law rights of the plaintiff. It is submitted that pecuniary compensation will not afford it an adequate relief and if permanent injunction is not granted the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury to its business, name and reputation. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to damages even though the defendants have chosen not to appear. Such a course of action has been taken by this Court in the case of Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava and Anr., 116 (2005) DLT 599= 2005 (30) PTC 3 (Del.), wherein it was observed as under: "This Court has no hesitation in saying that the time has come when the Courts dealing actions for infringement of trademark, copy rights, patents etc. should not only grant compensatory damages but award punitive damages also with a view to discourage and dishearten law breakers who indulge in violations with impunity out of lust for money so that they realize that in case they are caught, they would be liable not only to reimburse the aggrieved party but would be liable to pay punitive damages also, which may spell financial disaster for them." 8. In another case entitled Microsoft Corporation v. Yogesh Papat and Anr., 118 (2005) DLT 580=2005 (3) PTC 245 (Del.), it was observed as under: "Plaintiff would also be entitled to damages for the reason that it would be futile to direct the defendants to render accounts for the reason that the defendants have been carrying on business surreptitiously." 9. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed in the following terms: (a) Decree of permanent injunction is hereby passed restraining the defendants, their partners, servants, agents, stockists, dealers and all other persons acting on their behalf from infringing and otherwise using the trade mark 'Honda', on foot valves, return valves etc. or any other allied and cognate goods and trade marks which are identical and/or deceptively similar to the trade mark 'Honda' of the plaintiff and to do anything amounting to passing off of their goods as the goods of the plaintiff; (b) Decree of damages in the sum of Rs. 3 lacs is also passed in favour of the plaintiff; and (c) Plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs. Decree be drawn accordingly. Suit decreed.