JUDGMENT A.K. Sikri, J.(Oral)-The plaintiff has filed this suit seeking permanent injunction, delivery up and damages, etc. against the defendants on , the ground that the defendants are infringing the plaintiffs trademark HONDA. The plaintiff, as noted in detail hereinafter, is the reputed manufacturer of automobile including cars, scooters and motor-cycles, etc. under the trade name HONDA. The plaintiff wants to restrain the defendants from using the trademark HONDA/HANDA in respect of their goods namely welding electrodes. The averments on the basis of which the suit is filed are as follows: Plaintiff is a limited liability company incorporated under the Laws of Japan as Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha, also trading as Honda Motor Co. Ltd., with its registered office ill Japan and Sh. Sudhir D. Ahuja is the constituted attorney of the plaintiff company. Plaintiff adopted the expression HONDA as the key and principal feature of its trademark and trade identity ever since incorporation in the year 1948, and has been manufacturing and selling motor cycles, motor cars, power equipments, among many goods, under the above said trademark. The plaintiff has been conducting its commercial activities world wide, for over half a century and in India, for over four decades under the said trademark HONDA. 2. Plaintiff is the largest seller of motor cycles in the world and also has a formidable presence in the four-wheeled passenger cars segment of the automobile industry. The plaintiff is among the twelve largest automobile producers in the world. The plaintiff has over 100 production facilities in 39 countries of the world including India. The plaintiff has been using the trade mark HONDA in India for a number of years. Many of its products have been imported under the trademark HONDA into India and have been in constant use for decades. Examples of such use are the use by individuals who had imported HONDA marked motor cars into India at least since the year 1964. The plaintiff began regular and substantial operations in India since the year 1984 by establishing joint venture operations to produce motor cycles (HERO HONDA), power products (SHRIRAM HONDA Portable Generators). Sales in India of all the said products of the plaintiff have grown by leaps and bounds ever since the year 1984, at the least, and such growth is continuing. The plaintiff began regular and substantial operations in India since the year 1984 by establishing joint venture operations to produce motor cycles (HERO HONDA), power products (SHRIRAM HONDA Portable Generators). Sales in India of all the said products of the plaintiff have grown by leaps and bounds ever since the year 1984, at the least, and such growth is continuing. In addition, the plaintiff at present has its own motor car manufacturing plant near Delhi under the name Honda Motors India Ltd., and a two-wheeler manufacturing plant under the name Honda Scooters and Motor Cycles India Ltd. 3. The annual consolidated net sales and other operating revenue for the year ending March 31,2001 of the plaintiff for its goods and services under the trade mark HONDA was approximately 52,169,734 U.S. Dollars. The plaintiff spends enormous sums towards advertisements for its goods and services, under the trademark HONDA. By virtue of initial adoption over half a century ago and extensive use worldwide the trade mark/ trade name HONDA has become exclusively associated with the plaintiff in the eyes of the consumers. In fact, the word HONDA has acquired the status of world famous mark, and any goods bearing the said mark are assumed to have been sourced from the plaintiff by the consumers all over the world including India. Many newspapers/periodicals having worldwide circulation have written about the plaintiff and its operations in very high terms and also advertisements of the plaintiff in various magazines have appeared from time-to-time. 4. The trade mark HONDA has been registered in various classes in over 157 countries, including India in the name of the plaintiff. In particular, the following registrations are relevant: MARK REGN. CLASS STATUS DATE NUMBER HONDA 201233 12 REGISTERED 14.3.1961 HONDA 225243 07 RECISTERED 9.11.1964 HONDA 422777 07 REGISTERED 4.6.1984 HONDA 393803 12 REGISTERED 5.8.1982 5. The trademark HONDA, in India has been continuous extensive and considerable as stated above. The trademark 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 (for popular motor cycles), SHRIRAM HONDA (for Power Products till about a few years ago), etc. The use of HONDA, in India has been on goods as varied as motor cycles, motor cars, power-tillers for use in agriculture, power generators, etc. 6. The use of HONDA, in India has been on goods as varied as motor cycles, motor cars, power-tillers for use in agriculture, power generators, etc. 6. It is claimed that the Indian public hold the trademark HONDA of the plaintiff in a very high esteem as the quality of all the goods manufactured by the plaintiff under the said mark is impeccable. In April, 2000, the plaintiff became aware of the availability, in large quantity of welding electrodes marketed by the defendants under identical trademark namely HONDA. It is also stated that the defendant No.2 had filed an application to register the identical registered trademark HONDA vide application No. 668875 in Class 9 in the year 1995, with the Registrar of trademarks. The plaintiff thus served cease and desist letter dated 25.4.2000 upon the defendants. Reply was received from the defendants through their Advocate refuting proprietary rights in and to the trademark HONDA held by the plaintiff herein. Not being satisfied with this response of the defendants, the plaintiff wrote to the defendants again on 6.6.2000 demanding that the defendants comply with the requisitions made earlier. This was followed by a reminder dated 20.11.2000. On 2.5.2001, the attorney of the defendants sent a letter stating that his clients had withdrawn the application for registration of the trademark HONDA filed by them. However, when the plaintiff carried out inspection at the Trademarks Registry, it was revealed that the said application was still pending though it was claimed by the defendants that they had submitted letter on 19.1.2001 for withdrawal of the same. The plaintiff in these circumstances, wrote another letter dated 26.6.2001 to the Counsel for the defendant requesting defendants again not to use the mark HONDA. No reply was received. On the other hand, the plaintiff found that defendants continued to market their goods under the trademark HONDA and had also started selling the goods by using the trademark HANDA. The plaintiff in these circumstances, wrote another letter dated 26.6.2001 to the Counsel for the defendant requesting defendants again not to use the mark HONDA. No reply was received. On the other hand, the plaintiff found that defendants continued to market their goods under the trademark HONDA and had also started selling the goods by using the trademark HANDA. In these circumstances, the present suit has been filed with the following prayers: (a) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, stockists, dealers and all other persons acting on their behalf from using the Trade Mark "HONDA/ HANDA", on welding electrodes or any other allied and cognate goods and trade marks which are identical with and or deceptively similar to the trade mark "HONDA" of the plaintiff or any other trade marks of the plaintiff and to do anything amounting to passing off of their goods as the goods of the plaintiffs. (b) For permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, dealers/stockists or any person claiming on their behalf, from infringing in any manner whatsoever, the registered trade mark HONDA of the plaintiff including colourable imitation thereof. (c) For delivery-up on affidavit by the defendants to the plaintiff all the offending goods, labels, dies, stickers, blocks, stationery and advertising and printed material bearing the offending mark "HONDA", for purposes of destruction and/or obliteration, as the case may be. (d) For damages of rupees five lakh to be awarded to the plaintiff. (e) For costs of the suit. (f) For such other and further orders to which the plaintiff is found entitled under the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. Along with the suit, IA No. 3059/02 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC was filed by the plaintiff for ad interim injunction. On 22.3.2002 ex parte ad interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, stockists, distributors and all others acting on their behalf from using the trademark HONDA/HANDA, in respect of welding electrodes which may be identical to the trademark "HONDA" of the plaintiff. This order was continued from time-to-time. 8. The defendant§ could not be served through ordinary process and, therefore, the plaintiff moved application under Order 5 Rule 20, CPC for substituted service which was allowed vide order dated 7.4.2005 permitting the plaintiff to serve the defendants by publication in the edition of "Hind Samachar", Punjab. This order was continued from time-to-time. 8. The defendant§ could not be served through ordinary process and, therefore, the plaintiff moved application under Order 5 Rule 20, CPC for substituted service which was allowed vide order dated 7.4.2005 permitting the plaintiff to serve the defendants by publication in the edition of "Hind Samachar", Punjab. Though this service was duly effected by way of publication, nobody appeared for the defendants and vide order dated 9.11.2005, defendants were proceeded ex parte. The interim order was made absolute till the disposal of the suit and the plaintiff was directed to file evidence by way of affidavits. Plaintiff has filed the affidavit of Sh. Sudhir D. Ahuja, constituted attorney. Copy of the power of attorney is filed as Annexure A. The outer packaging of the welding electrodes manufactured and marketed by the defendants bearing the trademark HONDA is Ex. P-1, cease and desist letter dated 25.4.2000 is Ex. P-2 and reply to this letter sent by the defendants through their Advocate is Ex. P-3. Letters dated 6.6.2000 and 20.11.2000 written by the plaintiff to the defendants are Ex. P4 (Colly.). Letter dated 2.5.2001 sent by the attorney of the defendants informing that they had stopped the use of trademark HONDA is proved as Ex. P-5. Letter dated 26.6.2001 sent by the plaintiff to the Counsel for the defendants requesting them again to send the undertaking not to use mark HONDA is filed as Ex. P-6. Cash memos of purchasing the goods of the defendants are filed as Ex. P-7. The adhesive sticker/label affixed on the new carton used by the defendants with the mark HONDA is Ex. P-8. In the affidavit, apart from proving the aforesaid documents, the witness has generally stated on oath the averments made by the plaintiff in the suit and noted above. 9. It is clear from the aforesaid unrebutted testimony that defendants adoption and use of the trademark HONDA in respect of welding electrodes which are offered for sale is fraudulent and it was intentionally adopted to deceive the public and create confusion amongst customers and dealers alike. 9. It is clear from the aforesaid unrebutted testimony that defendants adoption and use of the trademark HONDA in respect of welding electrodes which are offered for sale is fraudulent and it was intentionally adopted to deceive the public and create confusion amongst customers and dealers alike. The plaintiff is right in its submission that there is substantial use of welding electrode in the automotive sector, which is the main line of business of the plaintiff and the goods in question sold by the defendants are related and/or cognate to the plaintiffs goods and would come within the probable area of expansion of the plaintiffs business. The dishonest motive of the defendants is further manifest from the nature of packing material used by the defendants i.e. adhesive lables on its goods which bear the trademark HONDA on it. The adhesive sticker/label affixed on the new carton used by the defendants with the mark HONDA (Ex. P-8) may give the impression in the minds of the purchasing public that the defendants business is the business of the plaintiff or that they are part of the plaintiffs organisation or are selling their goods under a collaboration agreement with the plaintiff. From the aforesaid goods, it can be clearly concluded that plaintiffs products sold under the trademark/name HONDA are globally known for their superior quality. The plaintiff takes substantial care in maintaining the international standards in respect of the goods to which the trademark HONDA is applied. The products manufactured by the plaintiff also are selected carefully, determined on the basis of the market segment the plaintiff caters to, future prospects of that particular item in the global market and similar other factors. In the public perception, thus, the trademark HONDA is synonymous with technologically advanced products of international standard. In comparison, the products of the defendants are of insignificant and mediocre quality, and association of the said products with the plaintiffs globally known trademark is likely to, and must have caused dilution of the plaintiffs trademark. 10. Insofar as use of trademark HONDA by the defendant is concerned, normally one would say that the word HANDA, at least in India, would be different from HONDA inasmuch as HANDA is surname/caste. However, in the present case, the intention behind using the trademark HANDA is manifestly mala fide, when viewed in the context in which the trademark HANDA is adopted by the defendants. However, in the present case, the intention behind using the trademark HANDA is manifestly mala fide, when viewed in the context in which the trademark HANDA is adopted by the defendants. As is clear from the narration of the aforesaid facts, they first imitated and adopted the trademark HONDA which is identical to that of the plaintiffs trademark and even tried to get registration thereof. When the plaintiff issued cease and desist notice, though they initially resisted but thereafter vide letter dated 2.5.2001 agreed to withdraw the application for registration of trademark and also agreed not to trade under the trademark HONDA. Immediately thereafter they switched to the trademark HANDA. Defendant No.3 is the partnership firm in which the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, who are father and son, are the partners. Their surname is Bhramy. What prompted them to adopt the trademark HANDA has not been explained at all as they have failed to respond to the summons and did not contest the suit. Adoption of this trademark HANDA after initially using the trademark HONDA is clearly motivated as the defendants want to ride on the goodwill of the plaintiff and therefore they have cleverly chosen the word HANDA which is very similar to the word HONDA. Not only that, the adoption of this trademark HANDA with same kinds of adhesive sticker/label would clearly indicate that intention is to confuse the public. Therefore, it can be concluded that defendants have adopted and are using the mark HONDA/HANDA in an identical manner as that in which the plaintiffs mark is depicted and it amounts to infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff namely HONDA. Plaintiff has priority right to use the trademark HONDA, the use of which by the defendants is clearly impermissible. This Court in the case of Honda Motors Co. Ltd. v. Charanjit Singh & Ors., 101 (2002) DLT 359=2003 (26) PTC 1, Del restrained the defendants from using the trademark HONDA in respect of pressure cookers after taking note of number of decisions on the subject. One similar decision of this Court which needs mention and would be squarely applicable is the judgment of Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft & Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan, AIR 1994 Delhi 239. 11. The plaintiff is thus entitled to injunction in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of para 23 of the plaint. One similar decision of this Court which needs mention and would be squarely applicable is the judgment of Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft & Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan, AIR 1994 Delhi 239. 11. The plaintiff is thus entitled to injunction in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of para 23 of the plaint. Plaintiff is also entitled to the decree for delivery of all the offending goods, labels, dies, stickers, blocks and stationery, etc. on which offending trademark HONDA/HANDA has been published. Though the plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs. 20 lakh, since no evidence is produced and it has also not stated in the affidavit as to how these damages are claimed, this prayer is rejected. Some basis for claiming these damages, even in an ex parte matter, should have been indicated in the evidence. The plaintiff shall, however, be entitled to cost. Decree be drawn accordingly. Suit decreed.