H.R. Malhotra, J. 1. Plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for permanent injunction for infringement of copyright and also passing of besides rendition of accounts and damages with respect to plaintiffs packaging under the trademark NATRAJ in respect of penciles alleging that the arrangement of features, layout, colour scheme of the plaintiffs carton is substantially an imitation of their artistic work. 2. Facts as set out in the plaint are as under: 3. The plaintiffs are the manufactures of pencils and other items of stationery and are carrying their business since 1957. The plaintiff adopted the trade mark NATARAJ in the year 1961 in respect of pencils and since then they have been using the trade mark NATARAJ with the device of NATARAJ in a distinctive designed label having red background and the word NATARAJ written in a particular characteristic and style besides their trade mark NATARAJ have registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. The plaintiffs are also the registered proprietor of copyright in respect of carton of NATARAJ with a device of NATARAJ and have been selling their products packed in a box with a distinctive colour scheme and get up and they have sold their goods with the trade mark NATARAJ for a considerable amount details of sales figures of their products have been shown in Annexure D filed along with the plaint. 4. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that they have been spend large amount of money on sale promotion and advertisement thro various media such as Radio, Television, Newspaper, magazines cartons in which their goods are packed have been annexed with the plaint as Annexure F. 5. It is also averred in the plaint that the essential feature of the packing carton of the plaintiffs is red colour predominantly having black lines each side of packing carton with the mark NATARAJ on the right hand side with the device of NATARAJ where two small boys are shown as playing cricket and all these features constituted a original artistic work, of which the plaintiff is the owner being registered under Copyright Act. 6. 6. The plaintiffs further claim that on account of superiority of goods, long extensive and continuous user and wide advertisement, the plaintiffs’ trade mark NATARAJ and device of NATARAJ have become very popular with the stationery trade and the members of public who associate the trade mark NATARAJ with the plaintiff and no one else. They have further claimed that the get up of the carton in which the pencils are sold connote and denote the pencils manufactured by the plaintiffs alone. 7. It is the grievance of the plaintiffs that defendants have also start selling their products i.e. pencils though under the trademark PAN BOUNDED LEAD HB but with identical packing material of that of the plaintiff as indicated in Annexure F and that the defendants ha dishonestly adopted such features with a view to encroach upon the plaintiffs business giving a false impression to the general public as if the goods sold by the defendants are the origin of the plaintiffs whereas actually it is not so. 8. Though plaintiffs have no grievance with regard to the trademark PANKAJ BOUNDED LEAD HB, it being different from the trademark the plaintiffs but their grievance restricted to the artistic work of which the are the owner being registered under the Copyright Act. . 9. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that defendants have not only adopted the colour scheme of the plaintiffs packing but they also copied the slogan of the plaintiffs, viz, writes smoother, darker Last Longer. 10. The illegal activities of the defendants is causing irreparable loss injury and damage to the plaintiffs not only in terms of money but also in terms of reputation and thus the profits earned by the defendants are in fact, losses of the plaintiffs which the defendants are liable to com pens a to the plaintiffs. 11. Plaintiffs have claimed decree for permanent injunction against the defendants restricting them from reproducing, printing or publishing selling or offering for sale any packaging which is colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiffs artistic work. Further decree for permanent injunction is sought against the defendants from using slogan writes smoother, darker Last Longer". Decree for rendition or accounts and the profits earned by them on account of use of infringing Copyright is also sought by the plaintiffs. 12. Summons of the suit were sent to the defendants. Further decree for permanent injunction is sought against the defendants from using slogan writes smoother, darker Last Longer". Decree for rendition or accounts and the profits earned by them on account of use of infringing Copyright is also sought by the plaintiffs. 12. Summons of the suit were sent to the defendants. They were not served by means of ordinary process and registered AD cover and finally they were ordered to be served by way of publication in the Newspaper Statesman. The defendants were duly served by this means on 11th December, 2006 but not appeared and were proceeded ex parte. 13. Plaintiffs were called upon to prove its case and was directed to adduce evidence by way of affidavit. The plaintiff filed affidavit of one Manoj Dabke constituted attorney of the plaintiff and prove the case of the plaintiff by exhibiting various documents such as trademark certificates Ex. PW-2 to PW-4 and also Copyright certificate Ex.PW-5. This witness also prove the statement of sales and expenditure incurred on advertisemens duly attested by the Chartered Accountant as Ex. PW-6 & PW -7 and also brought on record the packing material that of the plaintiff and also of the defendants as Ex.PW-8 & PW-9 respectively. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and have also looked into the plaint and supporting documents referred to above besides evidence adduced by the constituted attorney of the plaintiffs in the nature of affidavit. 15. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs and making comparison of the cartons one that of the plaintiffs and another of the defendants, I am of the opinion that plaintiffs have been able to establish their case with regard to the infringement of copyright as carton of the plaintiffs and that of the defendants which are Ex. PW-8 & PW-9 are substantially similar and so is the slogans appearing on the two cartons besides figure of boy playing cricket. I have no doubt in my mind that defendants, by using such colour scheme and other features, have dishonestly adopted the artistic work of the plaintiff and for which they have been duly registered under the Copyright Act. PW-8 & PW-9 are substantially similar and so is the slogans appearing on the two cartons besides figure of boy playing cricket. I have no doubt in my mind that defendants, by using such colour scheme and other features, have dishonestly adopted the artistic work of the plaintiff and for which they have been duly registered under the Copyright Act. I am further satisfied that the plaintiffs are prior user not only of the trademark NATARAJ but also of the artistic work which was the creation of the plaintiffs and thus nobodyelse except the plaintiffs has the right or authority to adopt such colour scheme. Defendants by using exactly similar colour scheme have not only tarnished the business of the plaintiffs but have also adversely affected the reputation of the plaintiffs in the market as the goods being sold by the defendants have been purchased by the purchaser under the impression as if they were buying the goods of the plaintiffs and in this way, the defendants have gained wrongfully in terms of money and also have grape reputation of the plaintiffs in a clandestine manner. 16. There is no rebuttal to the claim of the plaintiffs as defendants remain ex parte throughout and since• the plaintiffs have been able to establish their case fully, therefore, they are entitled to a decree for permanent injunction as claimed in the plaint. 17. In view of the above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction is decreed against the defendants restraining the defendants, their directors, partners and representatives from reproducing, printing, publishing, selling or offering for sale any packaging as that of the plaintiff which is a colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiffs NATRAJ bonded lead packaging as shown in Annexure X. 18. Though the plaintiffs have also claimed for rendition of accounts but did not press this claim but only prayer for damages. On this aspect, learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance on judgment reported in 2006(32) PTC 117 (Del.) titled as Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters, where this court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs. 19. On this aspect, learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance on judgment reported in 2006(32) PTC 117 (Del.) titled as Hero Honda Motors Ltd. v. Shree Assuramji Scooters, where this court while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff awarded damages to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs. 19. Having kept that authority in mind and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also all aspects of the matter including the conduct of the defendant in infringing the artistic work of the plaintiffs and selling the same in market in clandestine manner, thus putting the plaintiffs not only to monetary losses but also in terms of loss of reputation, the plaintiffs are entitled to damages to the tune of Rs. 2 lacs. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.