AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Data capacity,"Number of counterfeit products
recovered",,
4 GB,94 pieces,,
8 GB,194 pieces,,
16 GB,187 pieces,,
32 GB,18 pieces,,
TOTAL,493 pieces,,
P a rtic ula rs of
Products","Price   of
Original product","Quantity
discovered during
the
Local
Commission",Total Cost
4 GB MicroSD cards,Rs. 500,94 pieces,"Rs. 47,000
8 GB MicroSD cards,Rs. 540,194 pieces,"Rs. 1,04,760
16 GB MicroSD
cards",Rs. 600,187 pieces,"Rs. 1,12,000
32 GB MicroSD
cards",Rs. 700,18 pieces,"Rs. 12,600
Total,,493 pieces,"Rs. 2,76,360
assumptions of sales. The relevant portions of the said judgments are reproduced herein below:- A)M/s General Electric Company v. Mr. Altamas,,,
Kha & Others CS(OS) No. 1283/2006 decided on 18.12.2008: “13. The next question which arises is of the claim of the plaintiff for damages. The,,,
Chartered Accountant engaged by the plaintiff by his unrebutted evidence assessed the loss caused to the plaintiff to be of Rs.25 lac. The claim for,,,
damages in the plaint was however confined to Rs.20 lac only. As aforesaid, 23 Dehumidifiers were seized by the court commissioner from the",,,
premises of the defendants and were left in the superdari of the defendant No.1… The evidence of the plaintiff shows that the defendant was selling,,,
each Dehumidifier for approximately Rs.25, 000/-. The defendant avoided to show his books of accounts also. From large consignment of 23",,,
Dehumidifiers seized from the premises of the defendants, it is apparent that the defendant No.1 was dealing in large volumes. The cost of the",,,
Dehumidifiers to the defendants has not been established but considering that in the last few years, the return on investments in stocks and mutual",,,
funds itself has been in excess of 15%, it can safely be assumed that the defendants would be carrying CS (OS) No.1283/2006 Page 9 of 10 on",,,
business for returns in excess of return on investments in stocks and mutual funds. Following the said principle I assume that the defendants had a,,,
margin of 22 to 25% at least on each Dehumidifier i.e. of over Rs.5, 000/- on each Dehumidifier. On this basis I consider the award of damages in the",,,
sum of Rs.10 lacs as appropriate. B) Microsoft Corporation v. Yogesh Papat & Anr. 118 (2005) DLT 580: “6.Plaintiff has also affidavit by way of,,,
evidence of Shri Sanjiv Sharma, a Chartered Accountant. Said evidence brings on record and proves the following: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (iii) On the",,,
assumption that the defendant sell approximately 100 computers a year, which is purely assumptive, on the further assumption that keeping in view the",,,
operating systems Windows 1998, 400 computers would be loaded with said system, lesser sales of the other software, assumption would be that 200",,,
computers and 20 computers respectively were loaded with the Software Office 2000 STD and Visual Studio 6.0, on the cost per unit of the licensed",,,
software estimated loss of business to the plaintiff comes to Rs. 64 lacs. Xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx,,,
12.Though assumptive i.e. based on the assumption of sale of 100 computers each year and on the basis of the popularity of the computer software,",,,
as also sold computers being loaded with the pirated software, loss of profit to the plaintiff in sum of Rs. 19.75 lacs stands established.",,,
it may be true that the financial loss is based on certain assumption, but it cannot be helped for the reason the defendant has chosen to remain ex",,,
parte.â€,,,
17.Consequently, as the plaintiffs in their evidence have stated that the actual value of the goods seized by the Local Commissioner was Rs. 2,76,360/-",,,
, and if it is assumed that the quantity of the seized goods seized is stock for fifteen days and that the defendant had been doing business for at least",,,
six months prior to the institution of the present suit, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to of 11 compensation of Rs. 33,16,320/-",,,
(Rs. 2,76,360/- x 6).",,,
18.However, keeping in view the judgments of this Court in Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v. HRCN Cable Network 2017 (72) PTC 556",,,
[Del] and in Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited, 2014 (57) PTC 495 [Del] [DB], this Court is of the opinion that the",,,
plaintiffs are not entitled to any punitive damages.,,,
In view of the aforesaid, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in accordance with prayer clause 22 (a)",,,
and (b) as well as actual costs incurred by the plaintiff. The costs shall amongst others include the lawyer’s fees as well as the amount spent on,,,
Court-fees.,,,
The plaintiff is also held entitled to compensation of Rs. 33, 16,320/-.",,,
Prayer (d) is allowed to the extent that the 493 units of infringing goods seized by the Local Commissioner shall be delivered by the defendant to,,,
the plaintiffs for destruction within two weeks of passing the Order. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly. Consequently, the",,,
present suit and application stand disposed of.,,,