SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) THE plaintiff is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies act, 1956. The suit had been instituted through Mr. Manish Jain, Company secretary of the plaintiff seeking relief of permanent injunction on account of passing off and infringement of trademark, domain name 'indiatimes. COM'. ( 2 ) IT is stated in the plaint that M/s. Bennett Coleman and Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as BCCL) is the promoter of the plaintiff. BCCL entered into the field of e-commerce about a decade back under the trade name/logo 'indiatimes. COM'. The Internet website was developed as 'http://www. indiatimes. com' and the domain name was registered as a domain name with the Registrars, Network Solutions Inc. The plaintiff has been offering a large variety of goods and services, Internet shopping, online games, Internet options etc. through this website. The logo is stated to have been coined by bccl as the said company is the owner of numerous publications such as the Times of India, The Economic Times, Navbharat Times, etc. popularly known as the Times group Publications. ( 3 ) THE grievance of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 has unlawfully and with malafide intention got a deceptively similar domain name 'indiatmes. COM' registered in their own name. Defendant No. 1 has registered its domain name with M/s. enom Inc. , USA. Defendant No. 3 is nominated as the proxy Registrar of the domain name and has concealed personal information of itself. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff's domain name is stated to have acquired extensive reputation with large turnover of the website and the said trademark 'indiatimes' is stated to be a coined word with no dictionary meaning. ( 5 ) THE defendants were served and none put in appearance. The defendants were proceeded ex parte. ( 6 ) THE plaintiff has filed the affidavit of Mr. Kumar Bankatesh, Law Officer of the plaintiff as exhibit PW-1/a. The said witness has identified the signature of Mr. Manish Jain and the Board Resolution has been proved as exhibit PW-1/1. The said witness has affirmed to what has been set out in the plaint. The witness has also proved on record the resolution passed by the Board of directors of M/s. BCCL on 21. 12. 1989, approving the transfer of the Company's internet business as a going concern to Times Internet Limited as exhibit PW- 1/2. The said witness has affirmed to what has been set out in the plaint. The witness has also proved on record the resolution passed by the Board of directors of M/s. BCCL on 21. 12. 1989, approving the transfer of the Company's internet business as a going concern to Times Internet Limited as exhibit PW- 1/2. The agreement in that behalf dated 1. 4. 2000 has been proved as exhibit PW- 1/3. The witness has deposed that the plaintiff has made various applications for registration of its trademark/logo INDIATIMES. COM, INDIATIMES. AUCTIONS, indiatimes. DATING, INDIATIMES. MOVIES, INDIATIMES. CHAT, INDIATIMES. CRICKET, indiatimes. ASTROSPEAK, INDIATIMES. EGREETINGS, INDIATIMES. HOTSPOT/s and the status report of the trademark of the plaintiff has been proved as exhibit PW- 1/4. The creation of the website of the plaintiff has been proved through the internet print out of the domain name registration, which is exhibited as exhibit PW-1/5 and shows the creation date as 22. 11. 1996. ( 7 ) THE witness has proved the original Internet print out of 'proxter. com' home Page and its links as Exhibit PW-1/13. The creation date has been shown as 24. 11. 2004 as per exhibit PW-1/14. ( 8 ) THE witness has also filed the uniform domain name dispute resolution packages as exhibit PW-1/15, which shows that the action of defendant No. 1 in registering a particular domain name is in bad faith. ( 9 ) LEARNED senior counsel for the plaintiff has taken me through the pleadings, documents and the evidence, which clearly establishes the rights of the plaintiff in the domain name 'indiatimes. COM' No doubt the principles as to what trade name can be used are limited in case of domain name cases since the possibilities of use of alphabets are limited. However, defendant No. 1 has tried to act clever by half by only eliminating the alphabet 'i' from 'indiatimes. COM' to create a domain name 'indiatmes. COM' and this is clearly not permissible. ( 10 ) THE plaintiff has also claimed compensatory and punitive damages as defendant no. 1 has violated the rights of the plaintiff in the domain name 'indiatimes. COM' with impunity. The defendants have not put an appearance. The case of the plaintiff is proved against defendant No. 1. COM' and this is clearly not permissible. ( 10 ) THE plaintiff has also claimed compensatory and punitive damages as defendant no. 1 has violated the rights of the plaintiff in the domain name 'indiatimes. COM' with impunity. The defendants have not put an appearance. The case of the plaintiff is proved against defendant No. 1. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has substantiated his case to such damages by reference to the judgement of this Court in Asian Paints (India) Ltd. Vs. Balaji Paints and chemicals and Ors. 130 (2006) DLT 150 wherein it has been observed that a party not appearing in the Court should not avail of the benefit of such absence from the Court proceedings. The relevant portion in this behalf is as under: "11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that apart from the relief claimed for in paras (a) to (d) of para 33 of the plaint, the plaintiff is also entitled to damages. In this behalf, learned counsel has relied upon the judgments of this court in Relaxo Rubber Limited and Anr. v. Selection Footwear and Anr. , 1999 PTC (19) 578, Hindustan Machines v. Royal Electrical Appliances, 1999 PTC (19) 685 and CS (OS) 2711/1999 M/s L. T. Overseas Ltd. v. M/s Guruji trading Co. and Anr. decided on 7. 9. 2003. In all these cases, damages of Rs. 3 lakhs were awarded in favour of the plaintiff. In Time Incorporated v. Lokesh srivastava and Anr. , 2005 (30) PTC 3 (Del) apart from compensatory damages even punitive damages were awarded to discourage and dishearten law breakers who indulge in violation with impunity. In a recent judgment in Hero Honda Motors ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters, 125 (2005) DLT 504 this court has taken the view that damages in such a case should be awarded against defendants who chose to stay away from proceedings of the court and they should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of evasion of court proceedings. The rationale for the same is that while defendants who appeared in court may be burdened with damages while defendants who chose to stay away from the court would escape such damages. The actions of the defendants result in affecting the reputation of the plaintiff and every endeavour should be made for a larger public purpose to discourage such parties from indulging in acts of deception. The actions of the defendants result in affecting the reputation of the plaintiff and every endeavour should be made for a larger public purpose to discourage such parties from indulging in acts of deception. " ( 11 ) IN view of the aforesaid, the plaintiff is also entitled to damages quantified at Rs. 3. 00 lakh. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid the plaintiff is entitled to a decree against defendant No. 1 in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (d) of paragraph 42 of the plaint. The plaintiff is held entitled to an amount of Rs. 3. 00 lakh against defendant No. 1 in respect of prayer clause (e) and (f) of paragraph 42 of the plaint. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.