“1N THE COURT OF DISTRICT. JUDGE,ROHINI COURTS DELHI, AT ‘ NEW.DELHI of 2019 Rajeev Kumar ‘Trading as M/s Karona Chemicals ‘ Plaintift | Versus Viacom.18 Media Pvt, Ltd & Others ++ Defendants PARTICULARS" T PAGENO. Memo of Pi Caurt Fees Brief Summary and List of Dates aint al ig With supporting affidavit and statement of truth jand Comp ‘Affidavit of Plaintiff under Order X Rule 6(3 of the Commercial Co: . Commercial Division ercial Appellate Division. of High Gaus Act PONS gt ETE Application under Order RXKIN Rules 7 read with sect supporting Affidavit 151 of CPC Monge 7 Certificate U/S 65 (B) of the Evidence Act Section 151 of CPC,1908 wn Exemption Application under Order 13 Rule Tv List of RelianceIN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI ‘TM / Suit No. of 2019 IN THE MATTER O1 Rajeev Kumar ‘Trading as M/s. Karona Chemicals ms sow Plaintiff 1 Versus Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd--& °Ors «++ Defendants MEMO OF PARTIES INTHE MATTER O} Rajeev Kumar ‘Trading as M/s. Karona Chemicals At: B-36/5, G-T Karnal Road Industrial Area, Delhi-1100033 Plaintiff VERSUS. | 1. Viacom18 Media Pvt. Ltd, . Corporate Office At ‘Zion Bizworld, Subhash Road-A. Vile Parle (East) Mumbai-400057 Maharashtra, India sesssoDefendant No.12, Helios Lifestyle Pu. Ld Spaze Edge Tower, Tower B, Office N6.522-526 Sec-47, Gurugram 1222002, Haryana,India Dated: 2705.19 Plate! DOW ++ Defendant No.2 Ja le iri & Sofid Bhambri, Gajenider Singh, Romila Singh, Advocates for the Plaintift PURI & PURI (Advocates) A-64, L.G.F,Gujranyala ‘Town, Part, pelhi-110009 E mail ID:puris_1@yahoo.co.in Mob.No.9911569395 ¢Ow IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, ROHINI COURT DELHI TM/Suit Mo. of 2019 INTHE M. ROF: Rajeev Kumar ‘Trading as M/s Karona Chemicals cou Plaintiff Versus Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd & Others +++ Defendants COURT FEES Rs 2/020 /— 'IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,ROHINI COURTS DELHI, AT NEW DELHI TM/ Suit No. 0f 2019 IN THE MATTER O} Rajeey Kumar Trading as M/s Karona Chemicals | r soe Plaintiff Versus Viacom 18Media Pvt. Ltd & Others ++ Defendants : BRIEF SUMMARY AND LIST OF DATES BRIEF SUMMARY 1, That the Plaintiff , i.e Mr. Rajeev Kumar, is the Proprietor of M/s T Karona Chemicals having its registered office , at B-36/5, Karnal Road Industrial Area, Delhi-1100@33. That the Plaintiff is the manufacturer of all kinds of perfumes, gels, sahs for a bath and the | shower not for medicinal purpose, body deodorants, cosmetics namely cream, milks, lotions, gels and powders for the face, the body and the hands, lipstick, nil polish, bind, sindoot, bleaching preparation ete. since 1985, Rgadi 2. That the plaintiff registered his trademark in class 3 and has been using it since 2007 pertaining to perfumes, bolly deodrants and other ‘cosmetics ete. That the plaintiff has tegistred trademark for gadies as a range of its perfume he OSCAR and is using brand, 3, That the plaintiff got to know about the infringement ofits registred mark in May,2019 when he came across the websites of defendants selling the products under the impugned mark as well’, when the plaintiff was sent the legal notice by defendant no.1 to stop using the impugned trademark, Oy .even though the defedant no.1 is not the rightful owner of the trademark ROADIES in class 3.LIST OF DATES PARTICULARS: Year 1985 1 trademark ie OSCAR for its. various cosmetic products such as\ pérflimes,” deodorants. etc furthermore launched a: su’ range of perfumes under the registered trademark of ROADIES in | class 3 ‘Year 2019 The plaintiff came to know about the Defendant °s acts of inftinging and passing, off ROADIES trademark! wordmark when the plaintiff saw the websites of the defendants’ actively selling and promoting the grooming cosmetic products ohtheit websites www.mtvindia.cam as well as on the www.mancompany.com, - furthermore , the plaintiff was sent a farce and a baseless legal notice by the defendant no.1 to cease from using its own registered trademark ROADIES ., whereas the plaintiff is the lawful proprietor of the trademark ROADIES and not the defendant no. May, 2019 Hence, the present suit:IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, ROHINI COURTS, AT EW DELHI TM/ Suit No. of 2019 INTHE MATTER 01 Rajeev Kumar Trading as M/s. Karona Chemicals seve Plaintiff , Versus Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd 2 Q%4 + Defendant SUIT FOR PERMANENT AND MANDATARY INJUNCTION FOR RESTRAINING INFRINGEMENT OF _TRADEMARK/WORD MARK, DILUTION, DELIVERY UP,RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS & DAMAGES AS WELL AS FOR PASSING OFF.U/S. 134/135 OF THE TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999 MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: I, That the Plaintiff , i.c°Mt. Rajeev Kumar, is the Proprietor of M/s. Karona Chemicals having its registered office at B-36/5, G.T'-Karnal Road Industrial Area, Delhi-1160933. That the Plaittifi is the manufacturer of all kinds of perfumes, gels, sahs for a bath and the shower not for medicinal purpose, body deodorants, cosmetics namely cream, milks, lotions, hands, lipsti preparations (cosmetic products) make up preparations, shampoos, gels, spray, mousses and balms for the hair styling and hair cate, hair lacquers, hair colouring and hait de colourant preparations; permanent waving and curling preparations, essential oils for personal use, mosquito lotion, Payee inte og ls and powders for the face, the. body and the nail polish, bindi, sitdoor, bleaching preparation; sun caremosquito spray & cream, shaving cream, gel, show, after shave lotion, tooth paste, tooth. powder, mouth wash (non- medicated), hot wax, cold wax as per CLASS-03 in Delhi since 1985 and deals with wholesale as well as retail customers. That the Plaintiff supplies tHe said goods all over India. That the Registration Certificate of the said proprietorship has been annexed herein as ANNEXURE P-1. Coty ) ‘That the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of trademark OSCAR. ‘ os@an vide trademark application ‘No, 2346158 and has been using the same since the year 2011 for perfuries and cosmetics, gels, sahs for a bath and the shower “not for medicinal purpose, body deodorants, cosmetics ‘namely cream, milks, lotions, gels and powders for the face, the body and thie"hands, lipstick, nail polish, bindi, sindoor, bleaching preparation, sun care preparations (cosmetic products) make up preparations, shampoos, gels, spray, mousses and balms for the hair styling and hair care, hair lacquers, hair colouring and hair de colourant preparations, permanent waving in class 3, the tra lemark certificate as well as status of the said, trademark js [ANNEXURE P-2 (COLLY). . That the Plaintiff launched and deals in sub}range of OSCAR perfumes known as ROADIES, FOREVER ete, a brandname for its sub range of perfumes and deodorants. . That the Plaintiff nexed hergin as conceived, coined and honestly adopted’ the trademark/wordmark gadies , itt the year 2007 and been using the same without any interruption, in respect of body deodorants and perfumes, and has been Rgadies: using’the same under the trademark throughout Indi Agadies ‘That the Plaintiff is also a prior user of the said mark i.e since the year 2007 in class3 exclusively, furthermore, the plaintiff has got the said mark régistered under class 3, vide trademark application Dien oe. . 4 a 1915048 whichis valid and ‘renewed. upto: 30,1.2020. The trademark certificate as well ds the status of the same has been annexed herein as ANNEXURE P- 3 (COLLY) : tes We ‘That, the Plaintiff-who is registered proprietor of trademark/wordmark Rgadies of said goods, which include all kinds of perfumes and body deodrants cosietics namely. créam; inilks, lotions, gels and powders for the face, the body andthe hands, lipstick, nail polish, bindi, sindoor, bleaching preparation, sun care preparations (Cosinétic-products) make up preparations, shampoos, gels, spray,’ mousses and balms for the hair styling and hair care, hair lacquers, hair colouring and hair de colourant preparations, permanent waving enjoy voluminous sales in the market, ‘That the plaintiff is selling gnd dealing in business of perfumes , body deodrants ete sitfee last 34 years’, the sale figures arising out.of the sales of the Plaintiff under the proprietorship concérm namely, M/s. Karona Chemicals for.the last 12. years for its range of perfumes Rgaudies and body deodrants ; SSNS aie reproduced hereinafter: [ S.No. Financial Year Sale Figures (in Rs.) 1 2007-08 349,290 z 2008-09 330318 3 2009-10 T1,98,056 4, 2010-11 17,71,078 *. 2011-12 22,41,152 | 6 hoi2-13 ~°"96,65,507 7. 2013-14 25,88,804 | 15,904,580 ‘ : Me9 2015-16 20,30,656 a 2016-17 7,719,570 uw 2017-18 20,1745 12, “2018-19 40,12,101 Grand Total 2,15,78,563 mars arr, 2 IS te A True Copy of Sales figure, Annual tumover, invoices, certificate of (Chartered Accountant along with other necessary documents ofthe products sold by the Plaintiff is annexed herewith as. ANNEXURE P- 4 (Colly), 5, It is submitted that Plaintiff have also-secured registration of the said Rgadies. trademark in the relevant class of goods/serviees ie class 3 ~The details of registrations owned by the Plaintiff in India are given below: z ™ Trademark [ 1 Application | “Wordmark Fiass | Goods & Services = No, & Date Name so : perfumes, deodorants, i gels, lipstick, nail polish, bindi, 'sindoor, bleaching preparation; sun tate preparations (cosmetic * |. tered «| products) make up pace 3 _ | preparations, shampoos, Til gels, spray, mousses and | 11,06,2022 balms for the hair styling and hair care, hair ‘ lacqiiers, hair‘colouring 2346158, y (11.06.2012) | and hairde colourant preparations ream, gel, ipa ~yUI ‘snow, after shave lotion hot wax, cold wax yolso4as (30.01.2010) perfumes, deodorants, gels, lipstick, nail polish, bindi, sindoor, bleaching preparation, suti care preparations (cosmetic products) make up preparations, shampoos, Rgadies 3 | gels; spray, mousses and balms for the hair styling [entree bis lacquers, hair colouring. and hair de colourant, preparations cream, gel, snow, after'shave lotion hot:wax, cold wax Registeied and Valid Till 30.01.2020 2289146 (24.02.2012) perfumes, toilet water, gels, salts for a bath and the shower not for medicinal purpose, toilet soaps, body deodorants, cosmetics namely cream milks, lotions, gels aad powders for the face,/the body and the hands, lipstick, nail polish, bindi, sindoor, bleaching 3 preparation, sun care, OSCAR 7 SK¥:|-3. | preparations (costnetic - products) make up preparations, shampoos, gels, spray, mousses and balms for the hair styling anid hair care, hair lacquers hair colouring aiid hair de colorants preparations, permanent waving tooth paste, shaving cream & after | -'|shave lotion, hoop and cf agarbatti as per class-03. and Valid Till 24.02.2022 ey Moye a432169 oD) (03/12/198. | "OSCAR 3 perfumes, toilet water, gels, salts for a bath and -the shower not'for medicinal purpose, toilet soaps, body deodorants, cosmetics namely cream ,| milks, lotions, gels and powders for the face, the body and the hands, lipstick, nail polish, bindi, sindoor, bleaching " Registered preparation, sun care and Valid preparations (cosmetic Till products) make up Fn2018 ‘preparations; shampoos, gels, spray, mousses and balms for the hair styling and hair care, hair | lacquers hair colourihg and hair de colorant preparations, permaijent waving toth paste, shaving cream & a shave Istion, dhoop bind agarbatt as pet elass-03 28/08/2033 | FOREVER 8: 2539340 ostear 3 perfumes, toilet water, gels, salts for a bath and the shower.not for medicinal purpose, toilet | Registered soaps, body deédorants, | “nd.Valid cosmetics namely cream | Ti inilks, lotions, gels,and | 28/05/2023 powders forthe face, the body and the hands, lipstick, nail polish ‘The said registration coritinues.to remain valid from time to time and is still in force. Copy of te Plaintiff's trademark cerlificate and current status of the same, of trade mark registration is annexed already in jhis plaint, Furthermore, the plaintiff's TM-M certificates aré #nnexed herein as ANNEXURE P- 5 (COLLY) ds WH Ag Utabuy “adeye < oN)13 6. That Plaintiffs’ products i.e. cosmetic products such as body deodrants and perfumes etc. ar sold throughout the territory of India, The said product of the Plaintiff is packaged under the mark OSCR and one of its range of perfumes and body deodorants is sold under the 2 gadies . wordmark/trademark in alogo.....The said "logo. is also subject matter of registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Pisintiff is using a particular label in respect of its products under Rqatdies . the trademark having a unique design, layout, get up and colour scheme and: particular logo. Furthermore,» the Plaintiff. is Rgadies & proprietor / owner of, - and OSCAR regisiered tfademark. oe tw 7. That the artistic features of the get up, layout and colour combination of above. mentioned prodiiéis have been ‘extensively devised and icted in the colour in various ‘print media and its features are exclusively associated with the. Plaintiff and no one else. The purchasers of the said product are mostly that class of people who ate’ fond of using cosmetics to enhance their appearance Rgatlies 8. ‘Therefore, ‘the Plaintiff's label/trademark having the aforesaid distinctive fe es forms essential part of the trade dress of the Plaintiff and as sucht is liable to be protected under section 134 of the the Trade Marks Act, 19994 That during the past, more than 12 years, the Plaintiff has built up an unparalleled reputation and goodwill in its trade mark/wordmark RQadies and for more than 34 years the plaintiff has built its adies business reputation ip its trudemiark OSCAR , of whidhe is a subrange of perfumes-; having used ‘it openly, continuously and extensively in relation to high quality cosmetic goods in practically all de pars of India, The trademark/wordmark OSCAR and Rgadies. _ is quite farous in the market That, by vittue Of long and: continuous usage of the trade mark Bgadies : by the Plaintiff in respect of abovementioned goods, Rgadies: the trade “mark/wordmark has come about to be exclusively identified and recognized with the Plaintiff in respect of perfumes and body'deodrants. That the degree of such association and Rgadies . ‘familiarity of the ~ "mark with the Paint Fi so immense that.the use of the said matk in relation to any goods whatsoever by any. third party int respect of. perfiumies’ and body deodrants , would automatically be looked upon by the consuming public and as thereof ' Qadies by the Plaintiff. The mark » thus; is a well known trademark for aforesaid goods. ‘That by virtue of being a longstanding user of more than 34 years from now, coupled with being a prior user, staggering sales’ which nuns intoa promotion in form of business page at “Facebook.com”, weblink of Which is hups:/www.facebook.com/www.oscarperfumes.in’ the plaintiff even maintains a , website by the name ° of “Oscarperfumes.com™.. -. Moreover, the plaintiff's perfumes and deodrants ete , are even sold on Amazon.co.in and Flipkart.com , the weblinks of which are https:/hwww, fumes- Roadies-Hot L0Gmi/dp/BOOTKHOYUG/ref=sr_1_87qid=1558601996&refinements =p_89%3 AOscar&s=beautysesr=1-8 and s/w flipkart.com/pdrfumes/oscar~brand/pr?sid106%2030% dies e trademark ay of the Plaintiff, ietdry interest of the Plaintiff, Therefore, 1, respectively. That has become. exclusive proj Plaintiff enjoys all statutéry and common law rights to use the Rgadies trademark/wordmark The. webpages: featuring the products of the plaintiff are annexed herein as ANNEXURE P- 6 (COLLY) as WH phetegiapms of Prtnetiat Crrets A Al00 annexed peaoin Oa ANUNEXERE— P= 6 (Lolly Rqadies That the Plaintiff submits: that the said mark ina stylized manner are’ exclusively associated with the Blaintiff and any use of the said packaging as-well as any other mark or packaging deceptively similar to the Plaint packaging, would cause confusion and deception in the minds of the purchasing public thereby vidlating the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights. It is submitted that the said product i.e, bearing a unique miark 1a stylized manner have come to be associated exclusively iwith the Plaintiff andno one else. Balke Geosat the Plaintiff was. shocked when he came across defendant no.1's products under mare + FALUAEAIS on website of defendant no.2, in month of May, 2019, it is pertinent to mention'that the defendant no.2's grooming brand known &s “ The Man Company” has listed and itis a strong apprehension that the defendant no.2is selling the men’s grooming products sueh as beard oil, fewash , faceserub ete under the mark GAUEUNESH sich is civect matter of infringement as Well, as".passing off: the plaintiff's trademark Moreover, what is shocking is that the defendant no.1 does have collaboration. with defendant No.t on its website as of now:. ~ Furthermore, the defendant no.l is openly. , without any fear of law of the land , is deceiving the consumers and re portreying thadl MEMES is being or is registered under the lave piovisions of TradeMark Act, 1999., as TM is being written at-bottom BHAI ‘ ofmark Wy UMS . That the plaintiff came to know that the entire offending mark is identical and/or deceptively 7 lar and copied from Plaintiff's registered trademark/wordmark, Rgatlies which spreads confusion & misrepresentation among the buyers & general public: There exists a very strong likelihood of confusion on the part of the public, which inclydgs a likdihood of. association with the:registered trademark of Plaintiff: They (general - public) will treat that, béth’ the marks ate same. ‘That the plaintiff is (ui 1 and 2, is similar or closely having the strong objection on defendant no.1"s_ mark defendant 1 » which is adopted byCw that for, this Hon’ble Court ; to appreciate the Rgadies | which is the exclusive property of Plaintiff as mentioned above. Yet, resembles to the registered. trademark/wordmark * the defendants are blatantly passing offf inging the Plaintiff?’ trademark. The webpages of the defendant's ‘products bearing: ttie trademark ROADIES. | indicating its commercial use is annexed herein'as ANNEXURE P- # _(COLLY) ue chain of events which transpired and led to Plaintiff's trademark’s infringement is that the defendant ‘no.1 applied for the’ trademark ROADIES, application no.28Y94U0 dated#asauls in class 3 , howevely ori 3.12.2018 they themselves voluntarily filed withdrawal letter before the trademark registry and hence withdrew their applicati request for the said mark without giving any.cogent'reason. Similatly , the defendant no.1 applied for régistration of its proposed trademark ROBBIE vide trademark application:no, 2899414 dated 4.2.2015 intclasaagmltis very vital to bring'to this Wiqp’ble Couit’s attention that here-alBorthe= defendant no.1 “iltd letter. of withdrawal before the Registry , dated 3.12.2018 once again, without giving any cogent reasons; It is to be pointed out’, that iffthe-defendant no.1 had genuine stake over th matk’ ROGDIES - . Roapmes and opposed the plaintiff's mark by filing rectification before the trademark then the defer dant n6.1-could havé easily registry , however, it did not choose to and deliberately abstained from “Furthérinorey it is pertinent to rention that the defendant no.| claimed priorasership., filing the same, when ample opportunity was given to it in its both applications since year 2003; however , itis to be nofei that! it was not able to produce'a single piece of evidence regarding it andthavisiwhy withdrew both the applications because , it had knowledge 2 itd trademark dées not avecany-cogent base in class 3. The. 3 irPBiee WOLLs L HEPUan Of, De bedgegt So panne enone gt’ KODLe'\en, ak eee a PRA oa on frat “e-defendant ncelwas: aware that the plaintiff is’ the lawful, Rgadies proprietor of the registered trademark as it wouldthave easily seen the search’ report, even after withdrawing its jboth applications:as mentioned above , the defendant no,] had-sent.a threat to the plaintiff dated 1.05:2019 , under the garb’ of legal notice to pressurize’ the’plaintif? who is the genuine-registered proprietor of the Rgadies trademink: ‘That tie defendant ino. stated in its notice “thatliit’'s the! ‘ff which ig infringing:and passing off @tc the ROADIES deferidiantno't”s trademark itis the Same situation where as ("the poris calling the kettle black”, here the defendant no.Liis the ROADIES under elass 3 and: itis casting aspersion that the plaintiff which is doing one which-does not have registration over the trademark business ‘since 1985-of cosmetic produets’etc is violater of the said * mark. That the said legal notice’is annexed herein as ANNEXURE P- & _(COLLY) 16. That the-Defendants have been fully aware ofthe use, goodwill and aaa Bgadies reputation of Plaintiff's /wordmark Plainti being sold in the same market and on same shelf (online as well as being sold. Therefore, defendant identical goods and in the dishonest and malafide’ and cannot, but be mot ed with the intention of trading upon and benefiting Plaintiff's by oodwill_and: reputation ia ne and ac’ far the suneriat onality oods ofws Plaintiff, That the Defendants have deliberately and dishonestly copied/imitated of Plaintiff's well-known __and___reputed Rgatlies trademark’s/wordmark’s, design. That the Defendant's aforesaid act is absolutely fraudulent and is in violation of Plaintiff's legal and vested rights &, as Well as passing off of Plaintiff's. trade mark, Rgatlies defendant's aforesaid act also amounts to indulgetce in unfair trade practice, , the impugned trademark adopted by Defendants’ ig nothing but an instrument of fraud and is being used for passing off defendant ’s. goods as tho8e of Plaintiff or connected with Plait siff by unscrupulous’ tradets and. retailérs.“Thus; defendants are wily of cheating and deceiving unwary and innocent customers by pussing off defendant’s ghods and Insiness as those of Plaintiff or connected “with Plaintife} Unfortunately, law does not permit Defendants to cash upon flaimtiff’s goodwill and reputation which the plaintiff has painstakingly[and honestly built over the period of 34 long. ‘years, That it is pertinent fo mention at the pla tiff has been dealing in buisiness:of cosmetic products such as perfumes , body sprays ete and has made a name for itself by participating in many“promotionel and business events ‘atid’ building his. business ‘fom’ scratch through its Be ong and terins such action as punishable offence under criminal law besides adies trademark © OF Rather, it prohibits being tortuous wrong accountable in civil law. i ‘That for the purposes of comparison, pictorial representation of the gadies Plaintiffs’ label-and-Defendant’s label for the mark is reproduced belo [ Plaintiff's Registered Trade Marki WordmarkKW above labels, it eayes no room fog any doubt On mere look of Defendants have malafidely adopted label of the Plaintiff for the mark v an GAD! respect of peffumes, body deodrants , facewash, facewash etc. From the above domparison the following similarities emerge:- i) That the’ entire defendant's trademark/device , mark (uf iiss) trademarklwordinarke is been slavishly iniitated to Plaintiff's registered Rgadies That the outer packaging of the pliifitiff's trademark as well'as the webpage dicating the impugned mark of defendants are annexed herein-as ANNEXUREP- 9 (COLLY) ii) "There's (Phonetic, visual, and structural similarity th the nace, TOTS loa iii) The goods covered under the defendant's mark gadies and are similar to Plaintiff's registered trademark 32\ iv) The goods marketed by defentiant under the defendant ’s marks are deceptively similar! identical to the goods for which Plaintiffs’ trademark. ¥ an ese) , is used. 18, That the defendant’s very-adoption of the marks of the Plaintiff is dishonest and mala fide and the act on behalf pf it , has caused losses and. injury to the“Plaintiff. The. Plaintiff submits that the defendant has adopted the said identical mark which. Rgaties “ens is deceptively similar to the” ¥ ‘of the Plaintiff, thereby causing confision arid deception in the minds of the purehasing public es well as the consumers. It is submitted that’ the purchasing class is being misled by the defendant's usige of the impugned mark. . 19, That the defendant have very cleverly copied the plaintiff's gad les trademark, as he is not the one , who has-adopted the mark , first in time. Thaiy it? as his trademark, he has knowingly done it is the plaintiff who has adopted the said trademark , first in tiifle for cosmetic products ete in class 3 5 Mt: 20. "By its impugned adoption ‘and user of the, impugned trademark and label, the defendants are:- a) Infringing as. well” as passing off, the Plaintiffs trademark/wordmark and enabling and encouraging others to copy the same, Defendant is thus violating the PlaintifP's ede» 22 statutory and common law rights in the trademark/ wordmark Rgadies’ ‘ theréof. ion with the b) Defendants are -iHegally representing iis assox Plaintiff by selling and marketing the: products actively under the impugned trademaeld LAUT ©) Not only that, the Defendants are further guilty of falsification. and unfair and unethical trade practices as well as passing off. |21, That the defendant 's schathe is a dishonest one and motivated by the | desire to usip the’vast reputation and-goodwitl- whitch is enjoyed by Rgadies . the Plai ¥ ‘The said ne Plaintiffs ff in the trademajk/ wordmark infin scheme is calculated fo'cause loss and injury 10 reputation and buisiness and dilute the distinctiveness of their trademarks and’trade dress of the product, The loss and injury. to the Plaintiff’ reputation due €o the said dilution is not éapable of being « calculated in monetary terms. H injunction e, immediate orders restraining the defendants, are required, 22. That , on comparison between the plaintiff's registered trademark and defendant *s. mark [it , it'can be adjudged that the defendant's mark is phonetically structurally visually bears a’ strong resemblance to plaintiff's trade mark , Hence’, causing confusion and deception in minds of peoplehat the products sold under the mark of Deferidants. are somehow relafed to the reputed rébistered trademark of the Plaintiff edie a148 That the Causé'of detion, arose inthe month of May, 2019) jwhhithese: the plaintiff saw-thé Webpage. of “The Man ‘Conipany's. website featuring the men’s grooming range under the. brandname:-of ws Harthermore, the plaintiff was sent’a baselesslegal to cease and desist, dated 1* May, 2019 froim'using it@own legitimate tegistened,trademink by she -defendantno.1 candy was ‘hreatened with lagal-action., That; the cause of action is subyjsting and is continuing on day to day’ basis, until unless the defendants are restrained frosa infringing and passing-off the piaintif?'s tradentatk 24, That the present. suit isbeing filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants fi illegally imitating the Pl Rgadies P's well known brand wordmark by using the impugnes It's further stated that the Defendants , are_ in fact, offering for sale, ie. using in the course of trade, identical products under the visually, structurally, phonetically land deceptively similar marks. “That the ma Poan perusal of the Defendgntfs impugned Trademark ROAD reveals that thé Defendant} have copied the said trademark/ordmark Rgadies including alf the unique and distinctive features used by the Plaintiff and the malafide ‘intention ofthe Defendants ig evident from the same, Further, the Plaintiff is the real owsier/ propri : Rgadies lor of the trademarks/wordmar That the weblinks of the abovementioned | websites “selling the impugned products are http:/vww.mtvindia.com/roadies/ and hups://Avww.themaneompany.com/products/vetiverthair-body-wash- roadies-edition? variant=2525940482058 ete,26, That the Defendants with ‘corrupt as well as’ with malafide intention has imitated / copied the PlaintifPs well known trademark/wordmark Rgatlles ' to trade upon the plaintiff's hard earned goodwill under theisaid mark for the said goods thereof and by doing s the Defendants are_ trying to-misrepiesent in the public that they arelassociated with the Plaintiff. The comparison beiween the Plaintiff's well known trademark/wordm: RY: dies: with the Defendant's impugned edition ?variant=2525940482058, ttps://yyww.themancompany.com/pages/search-results- page?q=ROADIES, htips://www.themangompany.com/products/vetiver: Deard-oil-rondies-edl variant=2525941301258 ete , it is quite clear that it has fraudulently copied the-Plaintff's brand in order to-deceive customers and general public and to ride piggybaek upon the reputation aiid goodwill of the Plaintiff's mark/ wordmark for its own monetary benefit. Hence, causing huge revenue losses-to the Plaintiff. webpages of wwamtvindia.com as well as www. Themagegmpanycom are annexed herein as ANNEXURE P-Ip (COLLY) That the Defendants ~_ were well aware of the Plaintiff's reputed and dies ark. fae auidthat adopted a confusingly similar mark , fraudulently and dishonestly wi well known trademark! wor they have th ah ulterior motive of misappropriating the hard eamed goodwill of the Plaintiff. It is submitted that the settled lahw is that when the adoption of a mark is tainted with dishonesty no-amount of use would cleanse the same and the'same would be liable to be curbed. It is unfathomable. that the defendants were not aware of the ownership and usage of the antadies cadena wordnet MOAN Pn since 2007. Thus, the use of the impugned Trademark by the «fr many years, defendants is clearly unauthorized and goes to show the wrongful intent of the defendant to ride piggyback on the Plaintiff's reputation and goodwill, That the defendant ’s label/tags on its website and Husiness listing online with inpugd markstogo FEAR, cen a « mere glance shows: nearly absolute Similarity. with the Plaintiff's nies ES trademark/wordmark and 1. The similarity is so clear and evident that:it appears that it has been, the Defendant's calculated attempt to deliberately use similar/identical phonetic word and writing style of the trademark in asimilar manner. Further, a mere look at the overall label/ags of the Defendant at first impression shows that it is identical to the Plaintiff's reputed and well known label/tags and that the general public can associate it with the Plaintiff. Even if the above said small similarities are not minutely observed, the overall similarity between the two packs is $0 close that it immediately dispels the‘assumption that the Defendiit’s labeV/iags, design was désigned Rgatlies independently’ of ‘the _Plaintif's:” label/tags anid aS ‘That both the products in tespresent suit are sold over shelf as well as. 1 online are cosmeties such as perfumes, body deodrants, apparel sprays ete. That the’produéts in the instant case-are identical: It is pertinent to note that the Defendants are actively marketing and selling the product wad 4 a29, pA ‘Therefore, the use. of @ ‘deceptively similar’ trade mark’ by the under the impugned mark within the territory of In Defendants ; woulld-clearly amount to: passing of i products as thosé of the Plaintiff as well as diution of the Plaintiff*s enormous brand value. The use of deceptively similar or identical labels’ tags by the Defendarits is in yiolation of the PlaintifP's rights. This ‘act of the Defendants is liable to be curbed by way ofan order of injunetion from this Hon'ble Court iinmediately. That there is a strong apprehension. that the defendants are’ actively selling the products under. the , printouts of the same are annexed (COLLY), ‘The Defendant 's conduct in instant suit constitutes infringement of ‘ Roatlies trademark of Plaintiffs, trademark/wordmark and i.” Infringenient _ and Passing Off. of __ Plaintiff's trademark/wordmark by the use of a deceptively, similar trade : Fgautles mark: The Plaintiff's mark trademark/ wordmark and fellas | isa coined mark, unique and distinctive of the Plaintiff and has acquired immense goodwilll with time, The Defendant's mark li lis visually as well as structurally simila/identical-to.’ the. Plaintiff's... trademark/wordmatk Rgadies | v That ‘the Defendant's adoption of the mark is undoubtedly subsequent to the Plaintiff's first and prior use; The2 Plaintiff is the first adopter. and’ prior user‘of thé mark since the year, 2007. The Deferidant , by.using the confusingly similar mark ig’ atlempting to make a misrepresentation that he, in some way is connected to the Plaintiff, All consumers and the public’ in general would identify the mark/ -label gates oe with’ the Plaintiff alone.and none else. Therefore, the malafide attempt of the defendants, to ride piggy back on the said: enormolls:reputation of the Plaintiff ouight-to’bé.injuncted by way ofan order of this Hon‘ble Court, Owing to the nature of the goods, nature of purchase, class of customers, the adoption of a similar and label/tags is bound to create’confusion and deception in the market thereby amounting to passing off. ‘Acts of Unfair. competition and Dilution: ‘The Plaintiff's and Defendant’s goods ate sold on the same shelves ‘online ag well as-offline: The identity in the overall look-of the trademark designed bythe Defendants are similar to that of the Plaintiff's trademark jp a clear attempt to indulge in acts of unfair competition. Further, fit is’ submitted that as the Plaintiff has , no relation whatsoever vith the Defendants , there could be exercise of quality coiftrol on the part of the Plaintiff as regards the defendant's products Therefore, if any of consumers use the Defendant 's products, which may be of sub — standard quality, under the mistaken belief that the products belong to or ate related to the Plaintiffs, then such.activjties of the:Defendants , would certainly cause dilutiéii “of the Plaintiff's trademark/wordmark Rgad ‘The Plaintiff's mark is a coined mark and continued use of a deceptively similar mark by the Defendants , also would amount to dilution by way of blurring. Such continued use, causing28 dilution of the Plaintiff's mark is liable'to be restraingd by an order of injunction. jig MISREPRESENTATION “That the illegal acts of the Defendants. in.deliberately adopting a deceptively similar -mark |, being deceptively identical to that of the Plaintiff's trademark’ wordmark Rgadies , c is aimed at misrepresenting to the general public as ° to the source of these goods. The said activity by the Defendants, ~ . is calculated to mislead the public at-large as to the source of their “products: That it is évident from face of it that the Defendant "s . impugried:nark {8 *miseading the targeted, consumers of a sanitaryware as the Defendant's Mark high degree of: phonetic similarity with the plathiir ss, hence giving’an impression that the goods sold under this mark/logo @ belong to the plaintiffs Ww. SIMILAR PRICE. RANGE Teis further “sabiitted that-the illegal acts:of the Defendants int deliberately adopting. identical deceptively similar mark! Rgadies Packaging, with similar’price range to intentionally target the saine class of consumers aiid fraudulently exploit the goodwill eaméd- by the Plaintiff's trademark/wordmark “ . The said activity by the Defendants — is24 calculated to mislead th public at large as to the primary source of * their products, | 30. That this Hon'bl¢ Court‘has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit of the Plaintiff om thé following:- a) For the purposes of infringement, this Hon’ble Court has territorial jut iotion to entertain anid try the suit as per Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in as much as Plaintiff is can ng’on , its business within the tefritorial jurisdiction of this, Hon'ble Court having its registered office located at B-36/5, G.T Karnal Road Industrial Area, Dethi-110033 b) For ‘the’ purposes” of Passing Off; ‘this’ Hon'ble Court has territorial jurisdictinn to entertain and try the suit as the Plaintiff is carrying on its business in Delhi, There exists an imminent thiéat that the Defendants are il ly to extend its business activities and is already trading within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, as a matter of fact. Therefore, this Hon’ble Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try _». the present proceedings. 31. . The plaintiéf valués the suit for purposes of court fees and jurisdiction as under: - a) For a decree of permanent injunction restraining inftingement of trademark, this relief is valued for purposes of court fees and Jurisdiction at Rs.200/- and requisite court fee of Rs. 20/-is affixed thereon, b) For a decree, $f perinanent injunction, restraining dilltion ,as claimed, this ielief ®¥Waluéd for the’ purposes of court fees and 130 ©) For'an order:of.delivery up of articles, this relief is valued for the purposes of court fees aiid jurisdiction at Rs.200 /-., and a court fee of Rs.20/- is affixed thereon: 4) For an order of rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendants, it is valued for the, purpose of the jurisdiction as Rs.200 /- and a court fee of Rs.20/- affixed thereon as the plaintiff estimates that such an amount shall be bound due to the plaintiffs from the defendant on rendition of accounts having goné into. The plaintiffundertakes to-pay such additional fee'as it may be directed to pay by this Hon’ ble court and as ascertained of the actual amount due to plaintiff: 4 ‘Thus, the suit is valued for the purposes of court fees and jurisdiction at Rs.7,84,426 /- and the court fee of Rs.10,000 /-i8 paid thereon. PRAYER ‘The Plaintiff, therefore, prays that the following reliefs be granted in his favour: . a. A decree of permanent injunction restrainingfthe Defendants , their principal officers, franchise, any agent, fssignees, family members, licensees and anyone acting for and on his behalf for manufacturing ‘and. selling, offering -for sal, advertising. or promoting including by way of intemet or physically the goods Rgaties which include the mark and other allied goods gadies under the imipugned tiarl/ Packaging or any other mark, which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademark’ Rgadies . wordmark, that may lead to the infringement of the; 3 Plaintiff's registered trademark. To pass orders restraining the defendant's obvious imitation of the plaintiff's registered trademark application No. 1915048 amounting to infringetnerit of trademark in the said registered design; A decree of permanent injunction. restraining the Defendants , their principal offers, fratichise, any agent, assignees, family members, ticenseés and anyone acting for and on their behalf for inftingement’ passing, off ‘of Plaintiff redémark and using Rgadies ® deceptively sipnilar marie or any other deceptively similar/identical mark by way of internet such as the Deféndant nol "8 website ie“ wwwamtvindiacom ” and www.Themancompany.com” include cosmetic goods such as. body deodrants, perfume spray ,, apparel spray Ete and other goods ithder the:nark as the defendant's. mark is.has deceptive similarity to the Plairitiff’s registered trademark is also causing confusion in public and there is every” likelihood of injury to th plaintif?’s goodwill. A decree of permanes injunction restraining’ the Defendants, their principal officers, franchise, aniy. agent, assignees, family members, licensees and anyone acting for and on their behalf for Rgadies infringement of PlainfifP's trademark A decteé for permaijent injunetion restiaining the defendasts, theit partners or proptietor: s the case may be, its servants, agents, assigns in business, its dealers, stock holders ete, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, ditectly or indirectly dealing in, sanitary “ware or any other ayurvedic preparations under the impugned mark of any other mark ag may be identical to and/or: deceptively similar with the plaintiffs32 Rgadies trade mark, packaging/trade dress including its colour combination, get up, angement of features as may be likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to passing off of the defendant's goods/business as and for those of the plaintiff, An order of interim/teniporsry injunction restraining the Defendants, their principal officers, franchise, any agent, franchise, any agent, assignees, family members, licensees and anyone acting for and on their behalf for manufacturing and selling, offering for sale, advertising or promoting, the impugned Rgadies . trademark’ Packaging thereof or any other tradernark/ name which is in violation of the Plaintiff's sights in 2 ‘ ‘ Rgatlies . the trademark/ wordmark ', Causing passing off in spect of any products whatsoever. ‘A decree of Mandatory injunction against the Defendants, their principal officers, franchise, any’ agent; signees, family nembers, licensees and anyone acting for to delivery-up ofall the infringing. advertisements, promotional’ materials bearing the unique’ graphic depiction, any item Wwith trademarks! Packaging (i... all decouint books -related to, selling, distribution and advertising wittr impugned trademark. An order for destruction of all blocks, dyes, packaging material, packaging sirips, wrappers, labels, plastic packaging boxes, etc. li bearing trademark/ Packaging HA of the defendant or any other mark jentical to / and or deceptivély similar with Rgadies ‘twadethark/ wordmark ofthe Plaintiff in the presenceof the PlaintifP's representatives may please be passed in favour of the Plaintiff and aafins the defendants. ‘A decree for recovery of damages may kindly be passed in favour of the-Plaintiff and against the defendant to pay as deemed to fit by Hon’ble court aly amount after ascertaining profits of the defendants on its rendition of account along with interest at the market rate of 18% per annum or the amount-found Gue and payable to the Plaintiff after the rendition of accounts, of profits illegally eatned by the defendants by selling the goods under the trademarks/ Packaging as those of the Plaintiff's, Rgaties . trademark) Wordmatky ” - An order for rendition of accounts of profit illegally earned by the defendants and a decree for an amount so found due or in the alternative a decree for Rs. 20,00,000 /- may be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants; 4 Direct, the Defendants” to stop “listing " Defendant's productsicosjietics under’ the” name iia on their ‘websites that are the “"Themaneompany.com and MTVIndia.com “as well as to direct defendants to stop listing its goods for sale, by name of “Themancompany.com” as well as on its website “yww.mtvindia.com ”. Costs of the present suit be awarded to the Plaintiff, ‘Any. other further order(s) this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in’ ihe light. of” the ‘above “mentioned facts arid circumstances of the present case be allowed in favour of the G3y oe, Ot, V.K. Puri; Sofia Bhambri Advocates for the PLAINTIFF For PURI & PURI (Advocates) m Verified at Delhi on this day of May, "3019 thatthe contents of Para to of the above Plaint are true and correct to the best of my | knowledge and based upon information received and believed to be true and correct, the last Para is prayer to this Hon'ble Cou, ¢.. , OTs @ 7 ’IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,ROHINI COURTS DELHI, AT NEW DELHI TM/Suitno: of 2019 ' INTHE MATTER OF: Rajeev Kumar Trading as M/s Karona Chemicals s+ Plaintiff Versus Viacom.18 Media Pyt, Ltd & Others Defendants STATEMEN# OF TRUTH I Rajeev Kumar S/o Late Sh Anand Sagat Chabbra aged 56 years R/o B-36/5 , G.T Karnal Road, Industrial Area » Delhi -110033 deponent do hereby solemnly affirm ‘and declare as under: 1. I am the party in the above'suit and competent to swear this affidavit, 2. Lam sufficiently conversant with’ the facts of the case and have also examined all relevant ‘documents and records in relation thereto. 3. I say that the statements made in [~ 24 , paragraphs are true to my knowledge “and statements made. in, paragraphs are based on if formation received which I believe to be correct ‘and stateimenfs made'in 2O— 2) paragraphs are based on legal advice, 4. 1 say that there is no false statement or concealment of any material fact, document or record. and. I have included26 information that is according to me, relevant for the present : suit. . 5. I say that-all documents in thy power, possession, ‘control or custody . pertaining to the facts and ojrcumstances of the proceedings initiated by me have been: disclosed and copies thereof annexed with the plaint, and that I do not have any other’ : _.. documents in my power, possession , contiol or custody. : ett Zot ae ‘ : 6, L say that the abovefnentioxied pleading comprises gf a total of 5G pages , each of which has béer’ duly signed by me. 7.1 state that the Annexures’ hereto are true copies of the ddcuments referred to and relied upon by me. 8.1 say that T am aware that for any. false statement or : concealment, I shall be liable for action ‘taken against me under the law for the time being in force. @ Place: JoAK = Dated: . Lone cone | DEPONENT. VERIFICATION, 2." | L, Rajeev Kumar Proprietor of Karona Chemicals do hereby declare that the statements inadé above ara trué to my knowledge. Verified at on this : WAdete nts DEPONENT.IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, ROHINI COURT DELHI TM/ Suit No. of 2019 IN THE MATTER OF: Rajeev. Kumar ‘Trading as M/s Karona Cheinjeals see Plaintiff Versus Viacom 18 Media Pyt. Ltd & Others +». Defendants AFFIDAVIT. . I, Rajeev Kumar, S/o Lt. $h. Anand Sagar Chhabra Aged about 56 years Office’at B-3615, G.T Karnal Road Industrial Area, Delli-110003 who is competent person to sign.on behalf of all the Plaintiff; do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That lam the Plaintiff aid in that capacity I am familiar with the facts and circumstances of the present case and am duly authorized and’ competent to swear and. depose this Affidavit before this Hon'ble Court 2, That I say that the accompanying .2ourt "has been drafted uhder ‘my instructions and say thatthe statements made therein are true and correct to the best of rity knowledge, B £ ; ., ‘ ou een Ne EPONENT Verified at Delhi on this day of ; 2019 that the contents YERIFICATIO! of this affidavit are true and-correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing material has been concealed there from.‘ 38 IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, ROHINI COURTS, AT NEW.DELHI 7 ‘ TM/ Siit'No.* of 2019 IN THE MATTER O} Rajeev Kumar 1‘ ‘Trading as M/s. Karona Chemicals . Plaintiff: Versus Viacom 18 Media Pvt.Ltd. & ° Ors ++ Defendants AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF. OF THE PLAINTIFF U/O XI RULE 6 (3) OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AS AMENDED BY THE COMMERCIAL COURT ACT2015 I, Rajeev Kumar $/o, Lt. Sh. Anand Sagar Chhabra , Aged about: 56 Yib. office at B-36/5, G.T Kamal Road Industrial Arba, Delhi-110003 , do hereby solemnly affirm and declare ag under: ~ | 1. Tam the Plaintiff in the Present suit and am sufficiently conversant with the facts of the case and also examined all relevant documents and records in relation thereto and competent to swear this affidavit. 2. I say that the present suit was filed on instructions of the plaintiff for seeking injunction for the infringing mark as well as for passing off of trademark of the plaintiff. 3. say that the copies of the fillowing’documenté-aré being filed i support of the instant suit,39 a) The webpages of niy website Oscarperfumes.com as well'as link of business listing at” “Facebook.com”, weblinks of which : are https://www/facenook.com/www.oscarperfumes.in/ http://www.oscarperfumes.com/index.php?route=product/category&pa 6 94, http://www.oscarperfumes.com/index.php?route=product/product&pat h=76 94&product_id=1075, ttor//www.oscarperfumes.com/index.php?route=product/product&ipat h=76 94&oroduct_id=1076 b) Moreover, the plaintiff's perfumes and deodrants ete, are even sold on Amazofi.eo.in and Flipkart.com , the weblinks of. ‘which : fare httpst//www.amazon.infOSCAR-Perfumes- Roadies-Hot s00m\/d/200KHOVG/ref=se 1 8?qid=15586019968&refin ements=p 89%3AOscar&issbeauty&isr=1-8 and httos:/Awww-flipkart.com/perfumes/oscar™brand/pr?sid=t0 6962Cr30%2Caad c) The weblinks | of www.MTVIndia.com and www.themaneompany,.com 4.1 say that’ above4mentioned webpages were stored in my computer/mobile, phpne. That upon plaintiff's, instructions -btaken the printouts, I have, lawful control over it., the printout of said documents are accurate and their contents Have not been-altered in any manner whatsoever, the aforesaid’ dacuinents are the exact replica of the original documents and same are liable to be taken on. record for the purpose of admission/denial of the documents. 7 ‘ 5.°I say that the computer which was used to thkt the printout of the afore-mentioned documents was not malfunctioning at the time of taking printout, om Place: Delhi deo) Date:. /2019 ‘* 5 )EPONENT YERIFICATIO} . 1, Rajeev Kumar S/o. Lt. Sh. Anand Sagar Chhabra , Aged about 56 Yrs. office at B-36/5, G.T Karnal Road Industrial Area, Delhi-110003 » do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the statement made above are true to my knowledge. Verified at Delhi day of May, 2019, EPONENT < Vaan@ peéfomes, toilet water, gels, salts for'a’bath and the shower not for medicinal respect of iy. products whatsoever i. purpose, toilet soaps, bady deodorants, cosmetics namely oream milks; lotions, gels and powders for the face, the’ body. and the hands, lipstick, nail polish, bindi, sindoor, bleaching preparation, ‘sun care preparations (cosmetic product) make up preparations, shampoos, gels, sprgy, mousses and balms for the hair styling ‘antl hair care, hair lacquers hair colouring and hair de colorants preparations, permanent waving tooth paste, shaving cream & after shave lotion, dhoop and agarbatti as per class-03, and other allied goods. ‘An order of inter sjunction restraining the Defendants , their principal officers, assignees, family ers, licensees and anyone acting for and on his behalf Defendants using any “indicia” whatsoever to show any association and affiliation or or any other trademark’ name45 Rt d, The Defendants, their partners, officers, employees, agents, distributors, franchises, representative and assigns etc, be directed by this Hon'ble Court to:- f i. Provide a Complete discovery of any and all documents and informatin relating w any and all transaction concéming the ‘infringement of the:tradeinarks of the * plaintiffs; ii, Preserve all documents and other evidence in their possession relating to the subject matter of the instant suity . : €. Pass any other further order(s) this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the light of the above mentioned facts and circumstahees of the present case b¢ allowed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PLAINTIFFS, ~ AS IN DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY. ees Sofia 1° Gajendra Singh, Romila Singh Advocates for the PLAINTIFFS For PURI & PURI (Advocates) PLACE: DELHI A-64, Ground Floor, Gujranwala Town, Part I, Delhi-110009 DATE:2¥ 0€201946 ‘ IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE, ROHINI COURT DELHI TM/SuitNo. of 2019 IN THE MATTER O1 Rajeey Kumar Traditig as M/s Karona Chemicals sos Plaintiff Versus Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd & Others ++» Defendants oO AFFIDAVIT |, Rajeev Kumar, S/o Lt. Sh: Anand Sagar Chhabra Aged about 56. yeas , Office at B-36/5, G-T Kamal iRoail Industrial Area, Delhi-110003. who is competent person to sign on behalf of all the Plaintiff; dé hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1. That am the Plaintiff and in that capacity I aim familia: withthe facts and circumstances’of the present case and-ant duly authorized and competent to swear and depose this Affidavit béfore this Hon’ble Court. . : ® 2, . That I say that the accompanying application has.been drafted under ‘ ‘my instructions and I say that the statements made therein are true nd correct to the best of my knowledge. | DEPONEN? te VERIFICATI: Verified at Delhi on this day of ; 2019 that the contents of this affidavit are true and cotréct to the best Of my’ knowledge and belief Dare dL EPONE! and nothing material has been concealed there from.uf IN THE COURT OF. DISTRICT JUDGE,ROHINI COURTS DELHI, AT NEW DELHI TM /.Suit No. of2019 * , . IN THE MATTER OF: : ' ~ Rajeev'Kumar Trading as M/s Karona Cliemicals Versus Viacom 18 Media Pvt. Ltd & Others Defendaints Certificate U/S 65 (B) of the Evidence Act i LAdv. V.K Puriaged about 46years S/o Late Sh.D.P Puri, office at A-64, LG, Gujranawala Town, Part-I, Dethi-110009do hereby affirm and declare as under: - 1, Thave taker the aimexed webpages, printouts , homepages’ from: using my computer systems and I am having lawfil control over the said computer systen 2.“ T submit that: the-printout of the same. os well as stateinent.of accountledger" acco and invoices’ submitted along with the pleiné are proper and have’ been printed through the printer/photocopy machiné, attached to the computer systems Adyocate for the Plaintiff used by my me,he 8 ) IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE,ROHINY COURTS . DELHI, AT NEW DELHI’, TM /-Suit No. of 2619 , INTHEMATTEROF: | . Rajeev Kumar Trading as M/s Karona Chemicals ++ Plaintiff Versus ° Viacdm 18 Media Pvt.Ltd & Others ++ Defendants { “+ AFFIDAVIT, @... 1, Advocate V.K Paritaged about 46 years s/o. of Sh, D.P Puri , Office at Ac64, L.G.F, Gujraiwala Town’, Parl, Delhi-110009 , do hereby | solemnly affirm and declare as under: 1, That the annexed webpages of trademark application, trademark status from ipindia,comete were taken: from mycomiputer systems and I am having lawful control over the said computer system 2. I state that I have read and: understood the contents of the secompanying eértificgte and say, that the facts stated therein are ‘true and correct to thé’ béét of my knowledge and the information has been derived from the computer maintained by the Plaintif's Counsel. ws Depénent VERIFICATION Verified on: this ‘day. of of 2019 that the. contents. of Payal and 2 of the above Affidavit are true and correct ‘to the best of my knowledge and beliefland nothing material has been concealed there frorh,