Affidavit of Commissioner’s Reports as Conclusive Evidence in Trademark Infringement: Delhi High Court in Ml Brother Llp v. Maheshkumar Bhuralal Tanna

Introduction

The case of Ml Brother Llp v. Maheshkumar Bhuralal Tanna was adjudicated in the Delhi High Court on May 12, 2022. This legal dispute centers around the protection of the trademark “UBON,” which the Plaintiff, Ml Brother Llp, has been using since 2005 and registered in 2008 under Classes 9 and 44 for various goods and services, including electronic goods and medical services.

The Defendant, Maheshkumar Bhuralal Tanna, began using the mark “UBON THAI SPA” in Class 44, which led to the Plaintiff filing a lawsuit seeking permanent injunction against infringement, passing off, and unfair competition, among other reliefs.

Summary of the Judgment

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the “UBON” mark or any deceptively similar marks in any capacity that could lead to infringement or passing off. The court relied heavily on the Local Commissioner's report, which detailed the Defendant's unauthorized use of the mark across multiple spa centers in Goa and the subsequent agreement by the Defendant to cease using the mark.

As the Defendant failed to file a written statement within the stipulated timeframe, the court proceeded ex parte, accepting the Plaintiff’s claims as unchallenged. Consequently, the court decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, awarding nominal costs and dismissing any claims by the Defendant.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment cites several pivotal cases that have shaped the interpretation and application of Order 26 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly concerning the admissibility and weight of the Local Commissioner's reports:

Levi Strauss & Co. v. Rajesh Agarwal, 2018 IAD (Delhi) 622: Affirmed that a Commissioner's report, once filed, becomes evidence in the suit and forms part of the record, negating the necessity for personal examination unless contested.
Vinod Goel v. Mahesh Yadav [RFA 598/2016], 2018: Reinforced that Commissioners act as court-appointed officers, and their reports are integral parts of the case record.
Misrilal Ramratan Mansukhlal v. A.S. Shaik Fathimal, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 600: Established that Commissioner's reports cannot be dismissed merely due to the absence of personal examination.
Satya Infrastructure Ltd. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd., (2013) 54 PTC 419 (Del): Highlighted that additional ex parte evidence is redundant when affidavits and existing records sufficiently support the case.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning is anchored in the interpretation of Order 26 Rule 10(2) CPC, which posits that the Commissioner's report and evidence become part of the court record upon submission. The key points in the court's reasoning include:

Authority of Commissioner’s Reports: The Commissioner acts as an agent of the court, and their reports are prima facie evidence unless specifically challenged.
Non-necessity of Personal Examination: In absence of objections, there is no compulsion to examine the Commissioner in person, streamlining judicial processes.
Ex Parte Proceedings Justification: The Defendant’s failure to respond or contest the allegations led the court to accept the Plaintiff’s claims unchallenged.
Abandonment of the Suit by Defendant: The Defendant’s inaction and abandonment of the mark post-service further solidified the court's decision in favor of the Plaintiff.

The court meticulously applied these principles, ensuring that procedural correctness was maintained while safeguarding the Plaintiff’s trademark rights.

Impact

This judgment underscores the critical role of Commissioner's reports in trademark infringement cases, particularly in streamlining the adjudication process by reducing the need for redundant evidence unless contested. The key impacts include:

Enhanced Efficiency: By upholding that Commissioner's reports are conclusive when unchallenged, the court promotes swift resolutions in trademark disputes.
Strengthened Trademark Protection: Reinforces the legal protection afforded to registered trademarks, deterring potential infringers.
Judicial Precedence: Serves as a reference for future cases involving trademark infringement and the admissibility of Commissioner's reports.
Encouragement of Compliance: Encourages defendants to actively contest claims if they wish to challenge the evidence, fostering proactive legal defenses.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Order 26 Rule 10(2) CPC Explained

This rule pertains to the role of Commissioners in civil suits. A Commissioner is appointed by the court to inspect evidence or properties relevant to the case. The Commissioner’s findings, when submitted in a written report, become part of the case record and are treated as evidence. This means that unless a party contests the report, it stands as incontrovertible proof within the proceedings.

Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction

An ex parte ad interim injunction is a temporary court order granted without the presence or participation of the opposing party. It is typically issued to prevent harm or preserve the status quo until a full hearing can be conducted.

Passing Off

Passing off is a common law tort used to enforce unregistered trademark rights. It protects the goodwill of a business from misrepresentation by another party, ensuring that consumers are not misled into associating a third party's goods or services with those of the protected business.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court's judgment in Ml Brother Llp v. Maheshkumar Bhuralal Tanna reinforces the sanctity of Commissioner's reports in civil litigation, particularly in trademark infringement cases. By recognizing such reports as conclusive evidence when unchallenged, the court ensures judicial efficiency and robust protection of trademark rights. This decision serves as a significant precedent, guiding future litigations in trademark law and emphasizing the importance of proactive legal standing by defendants to contest evidence presented against them.

Furthermore, the dismissal of the Defendant’s claims due to non-response exemplifies the legal principle that silence and inaction in the face of legitimate claims can lead to unfavorable outcomes. Overall, this judgment contributes to the legal framework governing trademark protection, offering clarity and direction for both plaintiffs and defendants in similar disputes.