JUDGMENT : M. SUNDAR, J. 1. This suit has been filed alleging infringement of registered trademarks and copyrights. 2. It unfurls from the plaint averments that plaintiff has been manufacturing, marketing and servicing tyres and tubes under the trademark MRF which is used either alone or in combination with other brand names/trademarks/logos of the plaintiff. It is the say of the plaintiff that plaintiff is the Proprietor of the trademark MRF, which according to the plaintiff owing to continuous, uninterrupted and extensive use for the past over 55 years, has attained a very distinctive status and reputation. 3. It is also the case of the plaintiff that it is a leading company in India in manufacturing tyres and tubes for vehicles of various kinds and for various applications. Plaintiff also claims that it is one of the few Indian Companies, which enjoys global reputation and goodwill for its products. Plaintiff submits that MRF Corporate Trademarks/Artistic works are widely popular in India and abroad. It is the further say of the plaintiff that it has assiduously built up a reputation and good will, which is enjoyed by its Registered trademarks globally. Most importantly, plaintiff has averred that it has been spending enormous amounts of money towards advertisement of its MRF Corporate trademarks/ Artistic works in connection with the market and sale of its products. 4. This is a case where the defendant was a dealer of the plaintiff for the period from August 2007 to June 2014. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the dealership of the defendant was terminated in June 2014. Notwithstanding the termination of the dealership, defendant continued to use registered trademarks of the plaintiff as well as the artistic works in the marks, is the complaint and that is the basis for the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that on gaining knowledge about such infringement, a cease and desist notice dated 20.08.2015 was issued. It is also the say of the plaintiff that though cease and desist notice dated 20.08.2015 has been duly received by the defendant, the defendant has not chosen to send a reply. The defendant has not chosen to respond in any manner either. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the instant suit came to be filed on 24.02.2017. 6. It is also the say of the plaintiff that though cease and desist notice dated 20.08.2015 has been duly received by the defendant, the defendant has not chosen to send a reply. The defendant has not chosen to respond in any manner either. 5. In the aforesaid circumstances, the instant suit came to be filed on 24.02.2017. 6. As far as the trajectory of the suit is concerned, the sole defendant was duly served with suit summons, but did not choose to appear before the Court. Therefore, the sole defendant was set ex-parte and the suit was set down for recording ex-parte evidence before learned Additional Master-IV. Ex-parte evidence was recorded on 13.03.2018. One Mr. S. Srinivas, who has been described as Deputy Manager-Legal, deposed on behalf of the plaintiff and 13 documents i.e. Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. 7. This matter is listed before me for arguments. 8. Ms. Devi, learned counsel representing counsel on record for the plaintiff is before this Commercial Division. 9. Ms. Devi, learned counsel submits that the registered trademarks of plaintiff in a tabular form is as follows: S. No. Trademark Number Date of Registration Class Trademark Design Goods 1. 809834 13.07.1998 12 MRF Tread Rubber, Rubber Solutions, Bonding Rubber and Materials fro Repairing and re-treading of tyres included in Class 12. 2. 1718207 05.08.2008 35 MRF Retail services, including the bringing together of a variety of tyre and tyre related products enabling customers to conveniently view and purchase the same. Advice relating to business management of tyre retail and franchise outlets handling sales and service of tyres and tyre related products included in Class 35. 3. 1718200 05.08.2008 12 MRF Tyres, tubes flaps, treads and tread rubber for retreading tyres and parts and fittings thereof being included in class 12. 4. 1718210 05.08.2008 37 MRF Wheel alignment, Wheel balancing and tyres fitment services included in Class 37. 5. 1718211 05.08.2008 37 MRF Wheel alignment, Wheel balancing and tyres fitment services included in Class 37. 6. 478647 18.09.1987 12 MRF Tyres, Tubes, flaps included in Class 12 for use in motor land vehicles. 10. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that though six trademarks have been set out supra in the tabular form, the plaintiff has several other registrations. 6. 478647 18.09.1987 12 MRF Tyres, Tubes, flaps included in Class 12 for use in motor land vehicles. 10. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that though six trademarks have been set out supra in the tabular form, the plaintiff has several other registrations. As these aforesaid six registered trademarks are pivotal for the instant suit, they have been set out in a tabular form supra is her say. It is also the case of the plaintiff that some of the depictions of the plaintiff's marks qua the aforesaid registered trademark registrations are as follows: IMAGE 11. The Trademark Registration Certificates pertaining to the registered trademarks set out supra have been marked as Ex. P5. It ought to have been marked as Ex. P5 series. Though learned Additional Master has marked it as Ex. P5, I treat it as Ex. P5 series. The aforesaid depiction of plaintiff's mark have been marked as Exs.P2, P3 and P4. 12. The case of the plaintiff as set out supra is that the defendant continues to use the aforesaid registered trademarks even after termination of the dealership in June 2014. According to the plaintiff, the offending mark as used by the defendant is as follows: IMAGE 13. The photograph above has been marked as Ex. P12. 14. The cease and desist notice referred to supra dated 20.08.2015 and the postal acknowledgment card for the same, evidencing that the defendant has duly received the cease and desist notice, have been marked as Exs.P10 and P11 respectively. 15. As alluded to supra, the defendant did not respond to the cease and desist notice resulting in the suit. 16. There is a reference to the plaintiff having spent huge sums of money for popularizing its marks. A certificate from a Chartered Accountant setting out the expenditure incurred on advertisement by the plaintiff from September 2002 to March 2016 has been marked as Ex. P6. To be noted, a perusal of Ex. P6 certificate shows that it has been issued by the Chartered Accountant saying that the certificate has been issued at the request of plaintiff for filing trademark/copyrights infringement against one M/s. Shanmukha Tyres, Hyderabad, but the defendant herein is one Bommidi Raadhakrishna Reddy. However, Bommidi Raadhakrishna Reddy, has been described as a sole Proprietor of Shanmukha Tyres. Therefore, I deem it that the aforesaid certificate Ex. However, Bommidi Raadhakrishna Reddy, has been described as a sole Proprietor of Shanmukha Tyres. Therefore, I deem it that the aforesaid certificate Ex. P6 has been issued for the purpose of the instant suit. 17. However, it remains un-refuted. 18. As alluded to supra, one Mr. S. Srinivas, who has been described as Deputy Manager-Legal has deposed as PW-1. The Letter of Authorization from the plaintiff company dated 28.02.2018 authorizing PW-1 to so depose has been marked as Ex. P1. I have perused the deposition of PW-1. It is cogent and convincing. It is in tune/tandem with the plaint averments and the case of the plaintiff. 19. I now turn to the prayer in the plaint. Prayer paragraph in the plaint is paragraph 29. It consists of seven limbs. I deem it appropriate to extract entire paragraph 29, I do so and the same reads as follows: “29. In these circumstances, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a judgment and decree for: (a) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, its distributors, stockists, servants, agents, retailers, representatives or any other person claiming under/through them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's Registered Trade Marks MRF, MRF Connected Letter Device, the MRF Muscleman Device and/or MRF Dealer Board by using the said trademarks or any other mark, identical with and/or deceptively similar to the MRF Corporate Trademarks/Artistic Works ad MRF Dealer Board in connection with the tyre dealership business of the defendant or in any other manner whatsoever. (b) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, their distributors, stockist's servants, agents, retailers, representatives or any other person claiming under/through them from in any manner using the 'MRF Corporate Trademarks/Artistic Works and MRF Dealer Board and/or any other mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's MRF Corporate Trademarks/Artistic Works and MRF Dealer Board so as to pass off the defendant's business as that of a Dealer of the plaintiff and wrongfully associate themselves with the plaintiff's business or in any other manner whatsoever. (c) a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his distributors, stockists servants, agents, retailers, representatives or any other person claiming under/through him from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's Copyright in the MRF Connected Letter Device filed as Plaint Document No. 1 or MRF Muscleman Device filed as Plaint Document No. 2 or the MRF Dealer Board filed as Plaint Document No. 3, by using the above mentioned Artistic works or any substantial reproduction of the same on or in connection with the business of the defendant, or in any manner whatsoever. (d) The defendant be ordered to remove all painted displays, and other display material being used by the Defendant containing MRF Corporate Trademarks/Artistic works and MRF Dealer Board or any other mark which is deceptively similar and/or is a substantial reproduction thereof and surrender to plaintiff the glow sign board, all goods, labels, dyes, blocks, moulds, screen prints, packing materials, bills, vouchers, literature, publicity material, letterheads, invoices, challans, visiting cards, job cards, delivery notes, rate list, sign boards, glow signs, blow ups and all reprographic materials and other materials bearing any of the trademarks or artistic works of the plaintiff. (e) The defendant be ordered and decreed to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 25,01,000/- as damages for acts of passing off and infringement of Trade Mark and Infringement of copyright committed by the defendant. (f) for costs of the suit. (g) pass such further or other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice.” 20. Before dealing with the 7 limbs of the plaint prayers, it is to be noted that a careful comparison of the plaintiff's registered trademark certificates (Ex.P5 series) and depiction of plaintiff's marks vide Exs.P2, P3 and P4 on one side with the offending use by the defendant i.e. Ex.P12, clearly reveals that the defendant is guilty of infringement of plaintiff's trademarks as well as artistic works in copyright. 21. It is not even a case of using a mark similar to that of plaintiff's marks or using marks that are deceptively similar. It is a case of continuing to use the plaintiff's mark even after termination of the dealership. Therefore, action of the defendant clearly attracts the rigor of infringement of trademarks as well as artistic works in copyright. It is not even a case of using a mark similar to that of plaintiff's marks or using marks that are deceptively similar. It is a case of continuing to use the plaintiff's mark even after termination of the dealership. Therefore, action of the defendant clearly attracts the rigor of infringement of trademarks as well as artistic works in copyright. Plaintiff is certainly entitled to the prayers in the first four limbs of the prayer paragraphs i.e. sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). 22. With regard to sub-paragraph (e), plaintiff has claimed a sum of Rs. 25,01,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs and one thousand) as damages for acts of passing off, infringement of trademarks as well as infringement of copyright committed by the defendant. A perusal of deposition and 13 exhibits that have been filed reveal that no specific document has been marked to show actual loss or as to how this quantification has been arrived at. However, considering the fact that the defendant has virtually continued to use a mark, which is not a deceptive similar mark but the plaintiff mark itself, even after termination of dealership, I deem it appropriate to consider the aspect of costs under Section 35-A of amended Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) as amended by the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 4 of 2016’). To be noted, costs paragraph is the 6th limb of the plaint prayer. 23. As far as Section 35-A of CPC is concerned, the same has been amended by Act 4 of 2016. Sub-Clause 2 of Section 35-A has been deleted. It is evident from Section 16 of Act 4 of 2016 read with the schedule. 24. A perusal of amended Section 35-A reveals that there is no cap with regard to the quantum of exemplary damages that can be awarded by the Court in cases of this nature. 25. Sub-Clause 2 of Section 35-A has been deleted. It is evident from Section 16 of Act 4 of 2016 read with the schedule. 24. A perusal of amended Section 35-A reveals that there is no cap with regard to the quantum of exemplary damages that can be awarded by the Court in cases of this nature. 25. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to extract Section 35-A as it stood prior to amendment by Act 4 of 2016 as well as the amended Section 35-A. To make it simpler, as it is only a deletion of Sub-Section (2), I deem it appropriate to set out Section 35-A as it stands now: “35-A. Compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or defences: (1) If in any suit or other proceedings, including an execution proceeding but excluding an appeal or a revision, any party objects to the claim or defence on the ground that the claim or defence or any part of it is, as against the objector, false or vexatious to the knowledge of the party by whom it has been put forward, and if thereafter, as against the objector, such claim or defence is disallowed, abandoned or withdrawn in whole or in part, the Court, if it so thinks fit, may, after recording its reasons for holding such claim or defence to be false or vexatious, make an order for the payment to the objector by the party by whom such claim or defence has been put forward, of costs by way of compensation. (2)...........(omitted by Section 16 read with Schedule of Act 4 of 2016 with effect from 23.10.2015) (3) No person against whom an order has been made under this section shall, by reason thereof, be exempted from any criminal liability in respect of any claim or defence made by him. (4) The amount of any compensation awarded under this section in respect of a false or vexatious claim or defence shall be taken into account in any subsequent suit for damages or compensation in respect of such claim or defence.” 26. Owing to all that have been set out supra, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case for awarding exemplary damages of Rs. Owing to all that have been set out supra, I am of the considered view that this is a fit case for awarding exemplary damages of Rs. 10 lakhs particularly in the light of the fact that the defendant who was a dealer, continues to use virtually the registered trademarks and copyrights of plaintiff even post termination of the dealership. 27. The cascading effect in this regard i.e. qua exemplary costs under Section 35-A of CPC is receipt of the cease and desist notice and not even replying to the same. Added to this, the defendant has chosen to remain ex-parte compelling the plaintiff to carry the plaint to its logical end. These are the aspects which have weighed in my mind in awarding exemplary costs under Section 35-A to the tune of Rs. 10 lakhs. 28. To be noted, in addition to exemplary costs of Rs. 10 lakhs, plaintiff will also be entitled to costs of the suit as per bill of costs which would be filed in usual course. 29. Owing to all that have been set out supra and in the light of the reliefs that have been granted to the plaintiff, no further or other orders are required under the residuary limb of the prayer i.e. 7th limb, which is contained in sub-paragraph (f). 30. Suit is decreed with compensatory costs as in Section 35-A of amended CPC.