Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2407 (DEL)

Hard Rock Ltd. v. Hard Rock Beach Shack/Resort

2013-12-13

JAYANT NATH

body2013
ORDER : Jayant Nath, J. As per order dated 22.02.2013 of the Joint Registrar, defendants No. 1 and 2 are served. They are proceeded ex-parte. The plaintiffs have given up their claims qua defendant No. 3. 2. In terms of the judgment of this Court in the case of The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd. v. Gauhati Town Club and Anr., 2013 (134) DRJ 732 and in United Coffee House v. Raghav Kalra and Anr., 2013 (55) PTC 414 (Del) it is not necessary for the plaintiff to lead evidence in this case as affidavit in support of the plaint has already been field by the plaintiff. 3. It is averred in the plaint that plaintiff No. 2-M/s H.R. Cafe India Pvt. Ltd. is providing hospitality services including cafeterias, restaurants, restro bar and other allied services under the name and style HARD ROCK. The well known trademarks of the plaintiffs company are HARD ROCK and HARD ROCK CAFE. It is stated that these trademarks are being used in more than 138 venues in more than 53 countries. The mark HARD ROCK was conceived, coined and adopted by the predecessors of the plaintiff No. 1 in 1971. It is stated that first trade mark registration for HARD ROCK was done in 1972 in U.K. In India plaintiff No. 1is the registered proprietor of the trademark HARD ROCK and is also the proprietor of the trade marks-HARD ROCK CAFE and DESIGN, HARD ROCK HOTEL, HARD ROCK HOTEL and DESIGN, HARD ROCK BAR AND HARD ROCK BAR and DESIGN. 4. The details of the registration of the trademarks are provided in para 12 of the plaint. It is averred that the plaintiffs have taken pains to popularise the trademark by extensively advertising and marketing it in several newspapers and magazines having global circulations. It has received huge amount of valuable media presentation. Reliance is also placed on injunction granted in CS(OS) 21/2009 in one of the suits filed by the plaintiff titled as Hard Rock Limited and Anr. v. Hotel Hard Rock. 5. The annual turnover of the plaintiff arising out of the trademark/trade name HARD Rock is given in para 22 of the plaint. It is urged that defendant No. 1 is proprietorship concern operating under the name and style of HARD ROQUE Beach shack/resort. v. Hotel Hard Rock. 5. The annual turnover of the plaintiff arising out of the trademark/trade name HARD Rock is given in para 22 of the plaint. It is urged that defendant No. 1 is proprietorship concern operating under the name and style of HARD ROQUE Beach shack/resort. The trademark being used by defendant No. 1 is identical/deceptively similar to the reputed trademark of the plaintiff, namely, HARD ROCK. Defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor of defendant No. 1. Legal notice dated 01.11.2011 was served on the defendants through the attorneys of the plaintiff calling upon the defendants to cease forthwith from using the trademark HARD ROCK. No response is stated to have been received from the defendants. It is averred that the defendants are deliberately infringing the plaintiffs well-known trade mark with sole purpose of encashing the impeccable trade reputation of the plaintiffs? and to gain an unlawful advantage at the costs of the plaintiffs business reputation and goodwill. It is further averred that the act of the defendants is in violation of the statutory rights of the plaintiffs. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the use of the trademark HARD ROCK/HARD ROQUE by the defendants is wholly illegal. He submits that in case injunction is granted, the plaintiffs will not press other reliefs sought in the plaint. 6. In my view, the plaintiff has made a case for grant of injunction in their favour. 7. The Trade Mark being used by the defendant i.e. Hard Roque is similar/deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. The reputation of the Trade Mark of the plaintiff stands proved in view of the un-rebutted facts placed on record by the plaintiff. Accordingly, a decree of permanent injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, their proprietors, servants, agents and representatives from using the trade mark HARD ROCK/HARD ROQUE or any other trademark identical or deceptively similar trademark or trade name or cooperate name whatsoever. Plaintiffs would be entitled to costs. 8. The suit and all pending application stands disposed of. 9. Dasti.