JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C., r/w. Order IV Rule 1 of the Original Side rules and also Sections 29, 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Sections 17, 51 and 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, praying as follows:- a) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their principal officers, servants, agents, their assigns in business, dealers, stockists and others associated with them from using the words “HEALTH & GLOW” or any other mark, name, logo, monogram or label that is or may be identical with or deceptively similar to the registered 1) HEALTH & GLOW and/or 2) HEALTH AND GLOW (DEVICE) trademarks of the Plaintiff, or to market, sell, offer for sale, license, advertise, directly or indirectly deal in any goods any/or services online or offline amounting to the infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark Nos.802306, 1315016 and 1315017 in classes 3 and 3 & 5 respectively; b) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their principal officers, servants, agents, their assigns in business, dealers, stockists and others associated with them from using as a domain name/website address, marketing, selling, offering for sale, licensing, advertising, either directly or indirectly dealing in any goods and/or services bearing/using the words “HEALTH & GLOW” or any other mark, name, logo, monogram or label that is or may be identical with or deceptively similar to the HEALTH & GLOW/HEALTH AND GLOW (DEVICE) trademarks of the Plaintiff, as may cause or be likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to passing off of the Defendants’ goods and services as those of the plaintiff. c) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their principal officers, servants, agents, their assigns in business, dealers, stockists and others associated with them from reproducing, using as signage or otherwise, printing, publishing or distributing any label, printed matter, stationery or packaging which is a colourable imitation or substantial reproduction of the plaintiff’s “HEALTH & GLOW” label as depicted in paragraph 13 of this plaint, amounting to infringement of Plaintiff’s copyright thereto. d) a decree for delivery up to the plaintiff for destruction of all packaging, labels, block, dyes, stickers, signage, advertising materials, all types of stationary and brochures and all other infringing materials of the Defendants bearing the words “HEALTH & GLOW”, e) a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendants to render account of profits made through use of the HEALTH & GLOW mark and a final decree thereafter be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of profits that have been found to be made by the defendants after it had rendered accounts, and f) decree for damages to the tube of Rs.25,00,000/- to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Award costs for the suit and to pass such further or other order or to grant such other relief as the nature and circumstance of the case may require, that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper.) 1. The suit is one for infringement of a trademark “HEALTH & GLOW”. The plaintiff prays for injunctive reliefs relating to use of the mark “HEALTH & GLOW”, mandatory injunction seeking destruction of packing material, labels etc., accounts and profits, damages to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- and for costs. 2. According to the plaintiff, it is the registered proprietor of the trademark “HEALTH & GLOW”. It is stated that the device mark was registered with Registration No.8023206, while the label mark with the dancing figure was registered in Trademark Nos.1315016 & 1315017 in Class 3 and 5 of the schedule. Claiming that the defendants are carrying on business with the name “Health & Glow Clinic” and “Dr.PB’s Health and Glow Clinic Private Limited” and such action of the defendants would amount to infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has come forward with the above suit. 3. Though served, the defendants have not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. Hence, the defendants were set exparte and the matter was referred to the learned Additional Master for recording of evidence. 4. Before the learned Additional Master one Mr.J.Madhusudhan, has been examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P40 have been marked. The said Madhusudhan filed a proof affidavit reiterating averments contained in the plaint. Hence, the defendants were set exparte and the matter was referred to the learned Additional Master for recording of evidence. 4. Before the learned Additional Master one Mr.J.Madhusudhan, has been examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P40 have been marked. The said Madhusudhan filed a proof affidavit reiterating averments contained in the plaint. From the proof affidavit, it is seen that the plaintiff has been using the trademark “Health & Glow”, since 31.03.1999 and the turnover of the plaintiff has been on steady increase. The turnover, which was about Rs.7,25,23,463/- as on 31.03.1999 has swelled to Rs.366,59,41,000/- as on 31.03.2019. 5. It is also seen from the proof affidavit that the plaintiff has spent huge sums for advertisement and popularisation of the mark “HEALTH & GLOW”. For the year ending 31.03.2019, the plaintiff had spent Rs.6,70,23,000/- towards advertisement. The plaintiff has also got a registered trademark and it carries on business in various cities across the country in the same trade name. The plaintiff has produced the trademark registration certificates and the legal user certificates as Exs.P12 to P31. It is also seen that apart from Clause 3 and 5, the plaintiff has got registration under Class 35 and 44 of the schedule to the Trademarks Act also. 6. From the above evidence, it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled to protection of its trademark and for accounting as well as damages. The evidence that is placed on record would demonstrate that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark and the user of the names “Health & Glow Clinic” and “Dr.PB’s Health & Glow Clinic Private Limited” by the defendants would definitely amount to infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff. 7. In view of the above, this suit is decreed as prayed for with costs.