JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J. The plaintiff has instituted this suit on 10th June, 2010, claiming, (a) the reliefs for permanent injunction, (i) restraining the defendants from using plaintiff's registered trade mark "HITKARI" as part of their trading style or domain name; (ii) restraining the defendant from using plaintiff's trade mark and passing off defendant's goods as that of the plaintiff or that having any association with the plaintiff company; (b) mandatory injunction directing the defendants to freeze the domain name i.e. www.hitkariceramics.com and to transfer the same in the name of the plaintiffs; (c) mandatory injunction directing the defendant to deliver up all the printed material; and, (d) for rendition of account of profits made by the defendant's by using plaintiff's mark. 2. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is: (a) that the plaintiff Company is a registered company incorporated under the Companies act 1956, which forms a part of the Hitkari group of companies which apart from the plaintiff includes Hitkari Industries Limited, Hitkari China Limited and M/s. Hitkari Brothers. The core business sectors of the Hitkari group of companies is of plastic packaging films, ceramics, potteries and chinaware; (b) that the Hitkari group of companies was formed in 1957, by late Sh. Krishan Kapoor and his elder bother Sh. Ved Kapoor and who promoted the trademark "HITKARI"; in the year 1996, Sh. Krishan Kapoor along with Sh. Ved Kapoor and Sh. Krishan Kapoor and his elder bother Sh. Ved Kapoor and who promoted the trademark "HITKARI"; in the year 1996, Sh. Krishan Kapoor along with Sh. Ved Kapoor and Sh. Ramesha Chathrath floated a private company by the name and style of "Hitkari Potteries Pvt. Ltd." which specialised in manufacturing of various ceramic and stoneware products; (c) that in the year 1987, the group diversified and resultantly "Hitkari Industries Limited" and "Hitkari China Limited" were formed dealing with plastics and exporting of china ware respectively; (d) that due to the serious losses in profits the company went into heavy looses to be ultimately declared as a sick industry under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act 1985 and a scheme of revival was formulated by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction in 1999; ever since the company has been on a constant path of progress; (e) that the trademark of the plaintiff "HITKARI" has been used by the company for about 50 years now and has been used since inception, thus forming an integral part of the identity of the company; money to the tune of 25 Crores has been spent on the publicity and advertising of the plaintiff company under the said trade mark and total business of more than Rs. 500 Crores has been carried out by the company under the said mark; (f) that the trademark "HITKARI" has been registered under various classes including Registration No. 438581 in class 21 for inter alia glassware, enamelware, containers, dishes etc. and Registration No. 438582 in class 8 for cutlery; (g) that by virtue of extensive and continuous use, the mark/name "HITKARI" has attained unparalleled reputation in bone china tableware and has carved a distinctive niche for itself in the trade circles and also amongst its consumers like Le Meridian Hotel, Taj Hotels, Oberoi Hotels etc. and Registration No. 438582 in class 8 for cutlery; (g) that by virtue of extensive and continuous use, the mark/name "HITKARI" has attained unparalleled reputation in bone china tableware and has carved a distinctive niche for itself in the trade circles and also amongst its consumers like Le Meridian Hotel, Taj Hotels, Oberoi Hotels etc. and has been associated closely with the plaintiff; (h) that the trademark "HITKARI" has acquired immense fame and reputation not only in India but has also acquired a distinct trans-border reputation by exporting bone china tableware to USA, Europe, Australia and by participating in reputed international shows in Germany like 'Tendence' and 'Ambiente'; (i) that in or about the first week of June 2010, the plaintiff's representatives came across a website on the internet, with the universal Resource Locator (URL) 'www.hitkariceramics.com'; (j) that on perusal of the internal records of the plaintiff company revealed that no such domain name was registered by or on behalf of any of the Hitkari Group entities; (k) that on further perusal of the website, it was found that the same was owned by the defendants i.e. Hitkari Ceramics Private Limited and furthermore they claimed to be in the business of 'manufacturing and marketing superior quality bone china crockery products; furthermore, the website claimed that the defendants were also offering an entire range of cutlery products; (l) that on enquiring with the Registrar of Companies, the plaintiff found that none of the persons in charge of the defendants had any connection with the plaintiff company whatsoever; (m) that the market survey carried out by the plaintiff revealed that no products of the defendant could be found in the market; furthermore, the balance sheet obtained from the Registrar of Companies revealed that the defendant had no or little business and no manufacturing assets; (n) that the defendant, by unlicensed use of "HITKARI" which forms a prominent part of trading style and also a prominent part of its domain name, is trying to infringe that trademark of the plaintiff and are trying to encash on the goodwill of the plaintiff by causing confusion in the minds of the customers by passing off its goods as that of the plaintiff; and, (o) that the plaintiff's trademark has now gained a reputation of a well known mark and forms a distinct character for the plaintiff company and the unlicensed use of the defendant would be detrimental to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff company. 3. Summons of the suit and notice of the application were issued vide order dated 20th August, 2010 and vide order dated 17th September, 2010 an ex parte ad interim order was passed restraining the defendant from using the said mark as a part of its corporate name. 4. Summons sent at the address of the defendant were received back with the report that the address of the defendant had changed. Liberty was given to the plaintiff to furnish the new address of the defendant. Despite service at the new address, the defendant did not appear and vide order dated 2nd September, 2013 the defendant was proceeded against ex parte. 5. The plaintiff has filed an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief of its director in its ex-parte evidence. 6. I have perused the ex-parte evidence led by the plaintiff in support of its case aforesaid. The plaintiff is found to have proved the case as pleaded. 7. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant; (i) of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the trademark "HITKARI" as part of trading style/trade name or as part of its domain name or as a trademark or otherwise, in relation to cutlery or bone china products or ceramic products or in relation to any other goods or services; and, (ii) the defendant is also directed to transfer the domain name www.hitkariceramics.com to the plaintiff. 8. However, it being the own case of the plaintiff that the defendant has merely squatted over the said name and has otherwise not earned therefrom, no case for grant to the plaintiff of the reliefs sought of delivery or of rendition of accounts is made out. 9. The defendant having not contested the suit, no order as to costs also. Decree sheet be prepared.