Valmiki J. Mehta, J (Oral) 1. This is a suit for injunction filed by the plaintiffs-company M/s Pfizer Products and M/s Pfizer Limited alleging infringement of the registered trademark of the plaintiffs BECOSULES on account of defendant no.1 manufacturing and selling the same drug under the trademark BEQSULE. Plaintiff also alleges passing off its goods by the defendant no.1 on account of the defendant no.1 using similar blister packaging having the same colour combination as that of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also claim damages of Rs. 20,00,200/-. 2. As per the plaint and the affidavit by way of evidence filed by the plaintiffs, the defendant no.1 is the manufacturer of the drug using the trademark BEQSULE. 3. I may note that originally there were a total of four defendants in the suit. Plaintiffs have compromised the matter with defendant nos.3 and 4 and therefore the suit is not pressed so far as defendant nos.3 and 4 are concerned. Suit has been withdrawn by the plaintiff against defendant no.2. Plaintiffs presently therefore seeks relief only against the defendant no.1 M/s Platinum Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 4. Plaintiffs have led evidence in support of its case by proving the due filing of the suit by filing of power of attorney as Ex.PW1/1, the legal proceeding certificate and renewal details of the plaintiff no.l's trademark BECOSULES is proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/3. Plaintiff no.1 became owner of the company by virtue of the assignment deed dated 3.5.2002 which has been proved and exhibited as Ex.PW1/2. 5. Plaintiffs have also filed and proved on record as per its affidavit by way of evidence its product alongwith blister packaging as Ex.PW1/4 and the blister packaging of the product of the defendant no.1 has been filed and proved as Ex.PW1/8. A comparison of the blister packaging shows that trade dress adopted by the defendant no.1 is same as that of the plaintiffs being in the combination of the white and reddish orange. 6. In view of the above, plaintiffs have made out a case for grant of injunction against the infringement of its trademark and passing off its goods by the defendant no.1 as plaintiffs have been shown and proved to be the owners of the registered trademark BECOSULE and the defendant no.1 illegally selling the drug under the deceptively similar trademark BEQSULE. Defendant no.1 is also found to be occupying the trade dress of the plaintiff. 7. Defendant no.1 is also found to be occupying the trade dress of the plaintiff. 7. Though counsel for the plaintiff argues for grant of punitive damages of Rs. 5 lacs and places reliance upon a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava & Anr. 2005 (30) PTC 3 (Del), however, it is noted that in the suit plaint, plaintiff has only claimed a lumpsum damages of Rs. 20,00,200/- and which are essentially therefore damages for losses caused to the plaintiff and which losses have not been proved. Since there is no averment in the plaint of plaintiffs being entitled to the punitive damages of Rs. 5 lacs therefore, no amount of evidence can be looked into which is not averred in the plaint. Plaintiffs therefore cannot be granted any punitive damages although as per the ratio of the judgment in the case of Time Incorporated (supra) punitive damages can be granted since the ratio of the judgment in the case of Time Incorporated (supra) is irrelevant in the facts of the present case where there is no pleading for grant of punitive damages. 8. In view of the above, the suit of the plaintiffs is decreed against the defendant no.1 and defendant no.1 is restrained from in any manner selling its products under the trademark BEQSULE. Defendant no.1 is also restrained from passing off its products as that of the plaintiff including by using the trade dress which is identical or deceptively similar to the trade dress of the plaintiff Ex.PW1/4 having a combination of colours white and reddish orange strip. Defendant no.1 is injuncted from using a trademark which is identical or deceptively similar to the trademark BECOSULES of the plaintiffs. Suit is decreed to the aforesaid extent. Plaintiffs will also be entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared.