JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. The Plaintiff-company is aggrieved by the violation of its trademark 'St.Ives' by the Defendants, who are making soaps and other cosmetic products under the trademark 'IVEES'. 2. The Plaintiffs trademark 'St.Ives' is registered in India under the Trademarks Act, 1999, which is stated to be subsisting. The Plaintiffs products are sold worldwide and the trademark has trans-border reputation. Plaintiff has set out in Para 17 of the plaint sales under the trademark running into millions of dollars. The Defendants were served but failed to enter appearance. 3. Plaintiff has filed affidavit of evidence of Mr. Gary P. Schmidt, Secretary of the Plaintiff-company affirming to the averments made in the plaint. The representations of the Plaintiffs trademark have been collectively proved as Mark-P-1 and the coloured copies of the Defendants' impugned trademark have been collectively proved as Mark P-D-3. Plaintiffs registration certificate in USA has been collectively proved as Mark-P-4. 4. A perusal of the plaint and the documents, it is obvious that the Defendants have sought to adopt the mark IVEES only as a colourable exercise to pass off its goods as those of the Plaintiff. 'St.Ives' is not an Indian name. Defendants have chosen not to appear in suit possibly with the object of evading the rigours of a decree for damages which may be passed against the Defendants. 5. I am of the considered view that apart from the injunctive relief claimed for by the Plaintiff, the Defendants cannot be permitted to evade the claim of the Plaintiff for damages by absenting themselves from Court proceedings. This aspect inter alia finds discussion in the case Asian Paints (India) Ltd. v. Balaji Paints and Chemicals and Ors. 2006 (33) PTC 683 (Del) where it has been held that permitting such absenting Defendants to evade damages would amount to premium on not appearing before the Court as against the party which appears. Not only that the action of the Defendants resulted in affecting the reputation of the Plaintiff and thus every endeavour should be made for a larger public purpose to discourage such parties from indulging in acts of deception. A decree is passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants jointly and severally in terms of prayer (a) of para 39 of the plaint being the prayer clause. A decree is passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants jointly and severally in terms of prayer (a) of para 39 of the plaint being the prayer clause. Insofar as reliefs prayed for in paras 39 (d) and (e) of the plaint are concerned, I deem it appropriate to pass a decree for a sum of Rs. one lakh against the Defendants on that account. Plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.