MANMOHAN,J. - (1.) Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks, passing off, dilution and tarnishment, unfair competition, damages or rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. The prayer clause in the suit is reproduced hereinbelow:- "58. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant: (i) An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 from offering services, advertising including on the internet and in any other manner using the Yahoo trademark or any other deceptively similar mark amounting to infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark as enlisted in Annexure A of the plaint, specifically Plaintiff's trademark registration nos. 1356813, 1420637 and 1311393 in Class 39; (ii) An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5, their partners or proprietor as the case may be, their principal officers, servants and agents, group/sister concerns or companies, from passing off their services as that of the Plaintiff; (iii) An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5, their partners or proprietor as the case may be, their principal officers, servants and agents, from operating the website www.yahookochi.com or any other website incorporating the Yahoo trademark of the Plaintiff; (iv) An order directing the Defendant No. 6, GoDaddy.com., LLC, the Registrar of the impugned domain name to suspend the operation of the said domain name and to transfer the same to the Plaintiff; (v) An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant Nos.1 to 5, their partners or proprietor as the case may be, their principal officers, servants and agents, group/sister concerns or companies, from diluting and tarnishing the Plaintiff's trademarks by virtue of their substandard services; (vi) An order for the delivery-up of all impugned materials of the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 that infringe the Plaintiffs Yahoo trademark or pass-off the Defendants' services as that of the Plaintiffs; (vii) A sum of Rs. 1,00,05,000/- for a decree of damages against Defendant Nos. 1 to 5, as valued for the purposes of this suit for the purposes of loss of sales, reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff's trademarks caused by the activities of the Defendants; or (viii) An order requiring the Defendants to render accounts of all sums earned by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 through their unlawful and infringing activities referred to in this plaint and decree for the same in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants; (ix) An order for costs in the present proceedings; and (x) Any further orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."
(2.) On 20th October, 2015, this Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:- "Learned counsel for the plaintiff is pressing for an ex parte ad-interim order. He has referred various orders passed by the Court from time to time, particularly, the order passed by this Court on 4th December, 2014 in CS(OS) No. 3444/2012 whereby the domain name of YAHOO has been restrained permanently. In the said order, it was also declared that the mark YAHOO is a well-known trademark. Counsel has also referred various paras of the plaint and the documents placed on the record. I am of the view that the plaintiff has been able to make out a strong prima facie case for the grant of an ex parte ad-interim injunction. Hence, till further orders, the defendants No. 1 to 5 are restrained from using the mark YAHOO in relation to the trademark as well as domain name obtained by them and they are also restrained from using the said trademark in any manner whatsoever in order to create confusion or deception in the trade. Defendant No.6 is directed to suspend the said name within one week from the date of receipt of the order. The interim order shall become operative within one week from the date of service upon the defendants."
(3.) Since despite service defendants did not enter appearance, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 26th October, 2016 and the ex parte interim injunction was confirmed.;