JUDGMENT M. Sundar, J. Mr.B.Karthik, learned counsel of M/s.Arun Law Associates [Law Firm], is before this Commercial Division, on behalf of sole plaintiff. 2. Sole defendant after being duly served with suit summons, did not choose to enter appearance or come before this Court. Therefore, sole defendant was set exparte vide proceedings dated 18.09.2018, which reads as follows: "Read this in conjunction with and in continuation of earlier proceedings of this Commercial Division dated 03.09.2018. 2. Today Mr.B.Karthik, learned counsel of M/s.Arun Law Associates [Law Firm] is before this Commercial Division on behalf of the sole plaintiff. 3. It is pointed out that sole defendant has not filed written statement. There is no representation for the sole defendant today also, though the matter appears in the 'Undefended Board' i.e., under the caption 'UNDEFENDED BOARD'. 4. Sole defendant is set ex-parte. 5. List this matter before learned Additional Master-I on 25.09.2018 for recording ex-parte evidence. Learned Additional Master-I is requested to record ex-parte evidence preferably on the same day and in any event on or before 28.09.2018. 6. List this matter under the caption 'FOR ARGUMENTS' before this Commercial Division on 04.10.2018." 3. Thereafter, suit was set down for recording exparte evidence before learned Additional Master-I and exparte evidence was recorded on 25.09.2018. One Mutahir Gulam Hussain, partner in the plaintiff's firm has deposed as P.W.1. Eight exhibits i.e. Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. 4. Details of eight exhibits marked are as follows: S.No. Exhibits PW1 1. Ex.P1 The Notarized copy of the partnership deed dated 02.08.1997 along with registration certification dated 28.11.1997. (Compared with original and found is correct) 2. Ex.P2 The Notarized copy of the Registration Certificate and Renewal Certificate of the Trade Mark application No.1677459 dated 28.02.2018. 3. Ex.P3 The original certificate for use in legal proceedings for the Trade Mark application No.1677459 dated 18.01.2018. 4. Ex.P4 The true copy and copy of the invoices of the plaintiff containing the Trade Mark “PTA” (compared with original and found is correct) 5. Ex.P5 The original Auditor Certificate certifying the sales turnover of the plaintiff dated 16.01.2018. 6. Ex.P6 The copies of the advertisement given by the plaintiff in media. (compared with original and found is correct) 7. Ex.P7 The notarized copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in I.A.No.9341 of 2011 in C.S.No.1409 of 2011. 8. Ex.P5 The original Auditor Certificate certifying the sales turnover of the plaintiff dated 16.01.2018. 6. Ex.P6 The copies of the advertisement given by the plaintiff in media. (compared with original and found is correct) 7. Ex.P7 The notarized copy of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in I.A.No.9341 of 2011 in C.S.No.1409 of 2011. 8. Ex.P8 The colour photographs of the infringing goods sold by the defendant and the embossing of the Trade Mark “PTA” in the defendants goods. The colour photographs of the infringing goods sold by the defendant and the embossing of the Trade Mark "PTA" in the defendants goods. 5. Suit is now before me for arguments post recording of exparte evidence. 6. Mr.B.Karthik, learned counsel of M/s.Arun Law Associates [Law Firm], submits that trade mark of the plaintiff, which is the fulcrum of this suit is Trade Mark No.1677459 in class-6, which shall hereinafter be referred to as 'suit T.M.' for the sake of convenience and clarity. It is submitted that suit T.M. has been registered on 17.04.2008, it has been renewed on 17.04.2018 and that it is valid up to 17.04.2028, certificate number is 920056 and date of certificate is 02.02.2011. According to Legal Use Certificate ('L.U.C.' for brevity), plaintiff is claiming user since from 01.01.2001, registration is word mark type is device and the word is "PTA". 7. Learned counsel submits that regular certificate of registration of trade mark has been marked as Ex.P2 and L.U.C. has been marked as Ex.P3. I have perused both. A perusal of L.U.C. reveals that suit T.M. is as follows: 8. Plaintiff submits that having obtained registration in class-6, particularly for all kinds of hardware items including TMT bars, iron and steel rods, angles, screws, nuts and bolts etc., as far as instant case is concerned, plaintiff is using said mark on cartons, in which nuts and bolts are sold and therefore, complaints of infringement and passing off in the instant suit. 9. According to plaintiff, they came to know some time in December 2017 that defendant is adopting a similar mark. Learned counsel for plaintiff emphasises that they are concerned with depiction of defendant's mark, colour scheme and the manner, in which, the carton has been made. 9. According to plaintiff, they came to know some time in December 2017 that defendant is adopting a similar mark. Learned counsel for plaintiff emphasises that they are concerned with depiction of defendant's mark, colour scheme and the manner, in which, the carton has been made. Typical cartons i.e., infringing carton of defendant alongside plaintiff's suit T.M. in cartons have been marked as Ex.P8 (Ideally it should have been marked as 'Ex.P8 series') and the same are as follows: 10. Copies of invoices of plaintiff to establish that plaintiff has been trading, using suit T.M., have been marked as Ex.P4. Ideally, it should have been marked as Ex.P4 series. I deem it appropriate to refer to the same as Ex.P4 series. The sales turn over certificate from the Chartered Accountants of the plaintiff has been marked as Ex.P5. Copies of advertisements given by the plaintiff in the media to popularise the suit T.M. has been marked as Ex.P6. Ideally, it should have been marked as Ex.P6 series. I refer to it as Ex.P6 series. 11. Learned counsel submits that sole defendant herein initiated proceedings pertaining to suit T.M. in the Delhi High Court. In all fairness, plaintiff has marked said order as Ex.P7, which would show that the same was dismissed for default. 12. I compared the rival marks in the instant case by adopting the time honoured principle for such comparison laid down in the celebrated judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J.P. and Co., (1972) 1 SCC 618 . I deem it appropriate to extract paragraph 9 of the said judgment which reads as follows : ' 9. It is, therefore, clear that in order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. They should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. In this case we find that the packets are practically of the same size, the colour scheme of the two wrappers is almost the same; the design on both though not identical bears such a close resemblance that one can essily be mistaken for the other. The essential features of both are that there is a girl with one arm raised and carrying something in the other with a cow or cows near her and hens or chickens in the foreground. In the background there is a farm house with a fence. The word "Gluco Biscuits" in one and "Glucose Biscuits" on the other occupy a prominent place at the top with a good deal of similarity between the two writings. Anyone in our opinion who has a look at one of the packets today may easily mistake the other if shown on another day as being the same article which he had seen before. If one was not careful enough to note the peculiar features of the wrapper on the plaintiffs' goods, he might easily mistake the defendants' wrapper for the plaintiffs' if shown to him some time after he had seen the plaintiffs'. After all, an ordinary purchaser is not gifted with the powers of observation of a Sherlock Homes. We have therefore no doubt that the defendants' wrapper is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' which was registered. We do not think it necessary to refer to the decisions referred to at the bar as in our view each case will have to be judged on its own features and it would be of no use to note on how many points there was similarity and in how many others there was absence of it. ' 13. To be noted, Parle judgment has been subsequently referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M.Dyechen Vs. Cadbury (India), (2000) 5 SCC 573 . 14. I perused the deposition of P.W.1. I find that the deposition is cogent and it is synchronised with plaint averments. This takes us to the prayer paragraph in the plaint. ' 13. To be noted, Parle judgment has been subsequently referred to by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M.Dyechen Vs. Cadbury (India), (2000) 5 SCC 573 . 14. I perused the deposition of P.W.1. I find that the deposition is cogent and it is synchronised with plaint averments. This takes us to the prayer paragraph in the plaint. Prayer paragraph in the plaint is paragraph No.32 and the same reads as follows: "(a) granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, distributors or anyone claiming through them from infringing the Trade mark "PTA" and identical packaging/get-up of the defendants or as their Trade mark/trading style or corporate name/or by using any other Trade Mark which is in any way visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's Trade Mark and to restrain the defendants, their servants, agents, distributors or anyone claiming through them from using letter heads, exhibits, sale bills or any other material containing the Trade mark "PTA" and identical packaging/get-up or as their Trade mark/trading style or corporate name/or by using any other Trade Mark which is in any way visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's Trade Mark. (b) Granting Permanent injunction, restraining the Headmark "PTA" inscribed in the screws or deceptively similar characters in any way visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's Trade Mark and to restrain the defendants, their servants, agents, distributors or anyone claiming through them from using or selling screws with the head mark "PTA" or by using any other deceptively similar characters in any way phonetically to the plaintiff's trademark. (c)granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, distributors or anyone claiming through them from passing-off the Trade mark "PTA" and identical packaging/get-up of the defendants or as their Trade mark/trading style or corporate name/or by using any other Trade Mark which is in any way visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's Trade Mark and to restrain the defendants, their servants, agents, distributors or anyone claiming through them from using letter heads, exhibits, sale bills or any other material containing the Trade mark "PTA" and identical packaging/get-up or as their Trade mark/trading style or corporate name/or by using any other Trade Mark which is in any way visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's Trade Mark. (d) The defendants be ordered to surrender to the plaintiffs for and/or deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff's registered trade mark label "PTA". (e) The Defendants be ordered to prepare and submit an account of profits made by them by the unlawful use of the Trade Mark "PTA" in their products and/or in the head mark of the goods of the plaintiffs and thereafter to pass a final decree upon ascertaining the accounts, in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount of the profit found to have been made by the defendants, after the defendants have rendered their accounts. (f) The Defendants be ordered to pay damages of sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty lakhs only) for the notional loss. (g) Directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff the costs of the suit. " 15. With regard to prayer contained in sub paragraph (f) alone, i.e., for damages, I find that no evidence has been let in and no documents have been marked. Therefore, plaintiff has proved his claim with regard to sub paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Plaintiff is entitled to a decree with regard to sub paragraphs (a) to (e) of the plaint prayer paragraph. As mentioned supra, no evidence has been let in with regard to damages, that too quantum of damages. Therefore, plaintiff will not be entitled to relief claimed in sub paragraph (f) of plaint prayer. 16. With regard to costs of the suit, considering the fact that plaintiff presented this suit in this Court on 05.03.2018 and considering the trajectory, plaintiff is entitled to costs. 17. I now examine compensatory costs under Section 35A of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908', ('C.P.C.' for brevity) as amended by 'The Commercial Courts Act, 2015' ('said Act' for brevity). To be noted, cap with regard to quantum of compensatory costs, which can be awarded, has now been removed in the light of amended Section 35A of C.P.C. as amended by said Act. 18. Considering the conduct of defendant in the instant case and considering the fact that defendant after receipt of suit summons, has compelled the plaintiff to carry this matter to its logical end over 1 = years incurring litigation expenses, time and energy, I am convinced that plaintiff is entitled to compensatory costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only). 19. Considering the conduct of defendant in the instant case and considering the fact that defendant after receipt of suit summons, has compelled the plaintiff to carry this matter to its logical end over 1 = years incurring litigation expenses, time and energy, I am convinced that plaintiff is entitled to compensatory costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only). 19. To be noted, compensatory costs is in addition to usual costs. With regard to usual costs under sub paragraph (g), plaintiff shall file bill of costs in the Registry by following normal procedures that are operating now. This is in addition to compensatory costs of Rs. 2,00,000/- as mentioned supra. 20. In the light of narrative supra, this suit is decreed with costs and compensatory costs in the aforesaid manner. Consequently, connected applications are closed.