Final Order 12

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.)
vs. SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL ANTIL, DISTRICT
JUDGE(Commercial Court)-09, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
CNR no.DLCT010039522025
C. S. (COMM.) NO. 311/2025
Index to the Suit
Serial No. NIIR PROJECT
CONSULTANCY
SERVICES through
Mrs. Veena Gupta,
(Sole Prop.)
vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR
BANSLA
Page Nos.
1. FACTS OF SUIT 2 to 8
2. EVIDENCE OF
PLAINTIFF
8 to 11
5. ANALYSIS AND
DISCUSSION /
FINDING AND
CONCLUSION OF THE
COURT
11 to 14
6. RELIEF 14
CS DJ No. 311/2025
Page No. 1
of 1
-- 1 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 1 of 14
DLCT010039522025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL ANTIL,
DISTRICT JUDGE-COMMERCIAL COURT-09
(CENTRAL DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
C. S. (COMM.) NO. 311/2025
IN THE MATTER OF:-
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES
THROUGH MRS VEENA GUPTA, (Sole Prop.)
HAVING OFFICE AT E-106, KAMLA NAGAR,
DELHI -110007.
… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MR. SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
SOLE PROPRIETOR
BIIR PROJECTS CONSULTANCY SERVICES
FIRST FLOOR, SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY PARK OF INDIA
PLAOT NO ITP-03, VED VYAS PURI
MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH -250002.
…. DEFENDANT
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION RESTRAINING
INFRINGEMENT OF TRADEMARK, DILUTION & TARNISHMENT,
PASSING-OFF, RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS, DELIVERY-UP,
DAMAGES ETC.
-- 2 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 2 of 14
Date of institution : 19/03/2025
Date on which Judgment was reserved: 17/04/2026
Date of Judgment : 28/04/2026
::- EX PARTE J U D G M E N T -::
1. By way of present judgment, this court shall adjudicate upon this suit
filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for permanent injunction
restraining infringement of trademark, dilution and tarnishment, passing
off, rendition of accounts, delivery up, damages, etc.
PLAINTIFF’S CASE
2. That plaintiff is a Sole Proprietorship Firm under the name and style of “
”/ “NIIR PROJECTS CONSULTANCY SERVICES”
since 01.04.2006 and the present suit is filed through Mrs. Veena Gupta
who is authorizied to sign and verify the present suit on behalf of the
Firm.
3. That plaintiff firm is primarily engaged in the business of providing
services of Business Management, Project Consultancy, Business
-- 3 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 3 of 14
Development and Business Administration since the year 2006 and
adopted the above mentioned Trademark since the year 2006 and put to
commercial use with the opening of the office at Kamla Nagar, Delhi, the
plaintiffs have expanded the use of the trademark/trade name/service
mark widely in respect and in relation to Business
Strategies & other allied services, the plaintiffs have continuously and
extensively used the same in the course of their trade and business.
4. That the mark has acquired an enviable reputation
in the mind of concerned class of persons so much so that any reference
to the mark is directly connected with the services
and services of the plaintiffs. The mark has come about to be exclusively
identified and recognized as a symbol of quality services of the plaintiffs
in diverse fields of business.
5. That adoption and/or use of the mark consisting of an identical or
deceptively similar mark NIIR Project Consultancy Services on the part
of someone else, without the consent, permission or licence of the
Plaintiffs, not only constitute an act of infringement of Plaintiffs’
registered trade/service marks. In addition, such acts also lead to acts of
passing off as well as unfair competition.
-- 4 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 4 of 14
6. That in addition to the above mentioned common law rights to the
exclusive use of the mark, the plaintiff also hold statutory right to the
exclusive use thereof and to prevent the use of any identical or
deceptively similar mark thereto constituting infringement on account or
registrations granted under the provision of the Trade Mark Act, 1999 as
per the following details:-
S.
No. Trademark Registration
No. Class
Date of
Applica-
tion
User Since Date of
Grant
1. 1544256 35 28.03.2007 01.04.2006 30.03.2010
7. That by virtue of the good quality, reliability, effectiveness and excellent
efficacy of the services sold by the Plaintiff, combined with their long and
continuous use, the Plaintiff has gained wide acceptance among the
members of trade and public at large.
8. That the Plaintiff has created the demand of its product internationally as
well as in India, the plaintiff is a regular in exporting its services to
various countries around the globe continuously and therefore has made
goodwill and reputation not only in India but even outside.
9. That the sales figure of the plaintiff company for the last 5 years gives an
exact picture of the goodwill and repetition of the plaintiff has earned.
The sales figure are as follows:-
-- 5 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 5 of 14
S.No. Year Sales in Rs.
1. 2019-2020 1,06,56,458/-
2. 2020-2021 1,78,95,443/-
3. 2021-2022 185,92,238/-
4. 2022-2023 2,13,90,562/-
5. 2023-2024 2,00,09,982/-
10.That the plaintiff has spent an immense amount of money in promoting
the business in India and abroad as mentioned in the tabular form
hereunder :-
S.No. Year Expenses in Rs.
1. 2019-2020 4,58,943/-
2. 2020-2021 3,86,073/-
3. 2021-2022 4,57,343/-
4. 2022-2023 5,12,898/-
5. 2023-2024 4,87,065/-
11.That the defendant was employed by the plaintiff firm as ‘Chemical
Engineer’ in November 2022, and after working from 28.11.2022 to
28.09.2024 with the plaintiff firm, the defendant had resigned from the
office of the plaintiff.
-- 6 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 6 of 14
12.That thereafter, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the
defendant had opened a consultancy services of his own in the state of the
Uttar Pradesh with the similar and deceptive name of that of the plaintiff.
13.That the defendant had opened his services by the name and style of
“
BIIR project consultancy services” which is absolutely similar to the
plaintiff adopted trademark being NIIR project consultancy services.
14.That the logo adopted by the defendant was also similar to that of the
plaintiff’s.
15.That the defendant being employee of the plaintiff had all the knowledge
and awareness to the fact that the said trademark has been continuously
being used by the plaintiff in its course of services and business.
16. That the defendant during the course of the employment had also stole all
the literature/hand books and other intellectual property products which
were meant to be given to the clients of the plaintiff and now is making
an ill-legal use the same.
17.That the activities of the defendant did not stop there and the defendant
and applied for registration of watermark “BIIR Project Consultancy
Services” vide application number 678471 underclass 35, which stands
objected by the plaintiff.
18.That the business of the defendant is also identical to that of the plaintiff,
and the clientele in which the defendant is working also the same,
-- 7 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 7 of 14
therefore there is all the likelihood that the clientele of the plaintiff would
get confused and would do business with the defendant thinking thereof
that it is the subsidiary/sister concern company of the plaintiff.
19.That in the month of October 2024 the plaintiff acquired the knowledge
that the defendant is passing of the trademark of the plaintiff ; plaintiff
had issued a cease-and-desist notice to the defendant dated 17th October
2024 from their attorney which was duly received by the defendant and
was evasively replied by the defendant without acknowledging the
statutory and common rights of the plaintiff.
20.That the act of the defendant of using trademark BIIR Project
Consultancy Services amounts to infringement of the plaintiff rights as
the trademark used by the defendant in all manner copies the essential
element of the plaintiff’s trademark being NIIR project consultancy
services.
21.That the plaintiff does not only use the logo but also
use the word NIIR project consultancy services during its day-to-day
business as the said word is written and sold in the products as well as in
its sale invoices and advertisement.
22.That therefore due to common law and statutory law the plaintiff has
acquired the proprietary rights of the mark and the act of defendant using
-- 8 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 8 of 14
the trademark BIIR Project Consultancy Services amounts to
infringement and passing off of the plaintiff’s trademark.
23. Hence, the present suit.
EX-PARTE PROCEEDINGS
24. The summons of the suit were served upon the defendant through speed
post and courier, which were duly served. However, none has appeared
on behalf of the defendant. Neither the written statement was filed on
behalf of the defendant. Accordingly, defendant was proceeded ex-parte
vide order dated 08.07.2025. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for ex-parte
evidence of plaintiff.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
25. In order to prove its case plaintiff examined Mrs. Veena Gupta as PW1,
who tendered her evidence way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon
the following documents:
i. The copy of the certificate of Trademark bearing number
1544256 of the plaintiff firm was exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
ii) The copy of various registration certificates including service
tax, GST and certificate of nomination for best 5000 MSME &
MSME registration certificate in India was exhibited as
Ex.PW1/2 (colly.) (OSR).
iii) The Import-Export code certificate of the plaintiff firm was
exhibited as Ex.PW1/3.
-- 9 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 9 of 14
iv) The copy of invoices depicting the use of the mark NIIR
Project Consultancy Services of various years was exhibited as
Ex.PW1/4 (colly.)
v) The printout of the Website depicting the background of the
plaintiff firm was exhibited as Ex.PW1/5 (colly.).
vi) The copyright certificates of plaintiff firm with regard to
various publications issued by the office of the copyright was
exhibited as Ex.PW1/6 (colly.) (OSR).
vii) List of clients of the plaintiff firm was exhibited as
Ex.PW1/7.
viii) The internet printouts of the traffic of the website of the
plaintiff firm was exhibited as Ex.PW1/8 (colly.)
ix) The copy of the offer letter with its annexures dated 21.11.22
issued to the defendant was exhibited as Ex.PW1/9.
x) The handwritten letter of the defendant wherein he had
communicated that he will be joining the job offered by the
plaintiff from 28th of November 2022 was exhibited as
Ex.PW1/10 (OSR).
xi) The email dated 20.11.22 sent by the defendant to the
plaintiff at plaintiff firm’s email ID confirming that he will be
joining the plaintiff firm on 28.11.11 was exhibited as
Ex.PW1/11.
-- 10 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 10 of 14
xii) The letter dated 28th of September 2024 whereby the
defendant had resigned from the post Chemical Engineer in the
plaintiff was exhibited as Ex.PW1/12 (OSR).
xiii) The letters dated 11.10.24 written by the defendant was
exhibited as Ex.PW1/13 (colly.).
xiv) The internet printouts of the defendant firm whereby the
defendant using lighting the mark BIIR was exhibited as
Ex.PW1/14.
xv) The trademark application status filed by the defendant being
BIIR consultancy services was exhibited as Ex.PW1/15.
xvi) The cease-and-desist notice dated 17.10.24 issued by the
plaintiff firm to the defendant along with copy of postal receipts
was exhibited as Ex.PW1/16.
xvii) The reply to the cease-and-desist notice dated 20.11.24 was
exhibited as Ex.PW1/17.
xviii) The invoices with the regard to the expenses incurred by
the plaintiff firm for running the website of the plaintiff online
was exhibited as Mark-A (colly.).
During examination in chief of PW-1, it was further
submitted that they are in possession of the original of only one
invoice i.e. Tax Invoice No. 103197 dated 03.07.2018 for an
amount of Rs. 4,248/- and the plaintiff has not been able to trace
the originals of the remaining invoices. Therefore, the said
-- 11 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 11 of 14
original invoice was exhibited as Ex.PW1/18 (OSR) and the
remaining invoices were be treated as Mark-A (colly.)
FINDINGS & CONCLUSION OF THE COURT
26.I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff, perused the record carefully
and give my thoughtful consideration to his submissions.
27.It is the case that plaintiff that the defendant was employed by the
plaintiff firm as chemical engineer from November 2022 to September,
2024 and the offer letter along with annexures dated 21.11.2022 and the
willingness of the defendant through a handwritten letter is place on
record as Ex.PW1/9 & Ex.PW1/10.
28. It is further the case that after secretly gaining the knowhow of the
business of the plaintiff, defendant suddenly resigned from his post and
thereafter started his own consultancy service in Uttar Pradesh in the
name “
BIIR Project Consultancy Services” which is deceptive similar to
the registered trademark i.e, ‘NIIR Projects Consultancy Services’ of the
plaintiff ‘s firm.
29. That the services are identical, the clientele is same thereby, and the logo
so adopted by the defendant is also similar to that of the plaintiff, which
all shall create confusion in the minds of the customers to associate the
defendant with the plaintiffs.
30. Plaintiff through the testimony of the PW-1 has duly proved on record
that the plaintiff firm was incorporated in the year 01.04.2006 and
thereafter, had adopted the trademark (Device) ‘NIIR Projects
-- 12 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 12 of 14
Consultancy Services’ through the copy of the certificate of registration
issued by the Registrar of the Trademarks bearing no.1544256 duly
exhibited as PW1/1 in Clause 35 which is valid till date.
31. Further, the plaintiff has also applied for registration of the trademark
(Device) in question in other classes, and holds copyright registration of
various strategy handbooks developed by the plaintiff firm, which is
evident from the copyright certificates duly issued by the competent
authority Ex.PW1/6(Colly.).
32. Plaintiff has also filed on record various invoices depicting use of the
mark “NIIR’ of various years exhibited as Ex.PW1/4 which shows the
volume of the business and promotional expenses undertaken by the
plaintiff in the succeeding years, to reflects its standing in the market.
33.Plaintiff also runs and maintains a website www.niir.org &
www.entrepreneurindia.co. depicting the nature of the services and the
background of the plaintiff firm.
34. Plaintiff has further placed on record other documents in support of his
case i.e. import -export certificate, GST Service Tax and a Certificate of
Nomination for the best 5000MSME registration certificate amongst the
other documents, including the list of clients of the plaintiff exhibited as
Ex.PW1/7 and to show the volume of the traffic at website of the plaintiff
firm as Ex.PW1/8.
35. The ‘triple identity test’ – similarity of the marks, identity of the service
and overlapping of trade channel also stands established.
-- 13 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 13 of 14
36. As proved on record, the defendant was gainfully employed with the
plaintiffs and thereafter he started his own consultancy with the deceptive
similar names with respect to the same class of service/ goods, which
further reflects that
malafide intention and conduct on the part of the
defendant, to say that he was well aware about the trademark of the
plaintiff, its reputation goodwill and the clients so associated with it.
37. Defendant despite service has failed to appear before the Court to contest
the case. The plaintiff’s testimony has remained unrebutted and
unchallenged.
38.Comparing the two trademarks i.e. ‘BIIR Project Consultancy Services’
and that of the plaintiffs ‘NIIR’ Projects Consultancy Services, it appears
that the trademark so adopted by the defendant is deceptive similar to that
of the plaintiff trademark whereby essential features of the plaintiff’s
marks have been copied, and which is likely to cause confusion in the
mind’s of the customers/ general public.
39. The infringing activity of the defendant is also likely to cause confusion
in the course of trade of the plaintiff leading to erosion of consumer’s
trust and dilution of brand image of the plaintiff which is also likely to
cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff.
40.Appreciating the documents so proved on record including the
registration certificate of the trademark(Device) ‘NIIR’ Projects
Consultancy Services, and the fact that the impugned mark adopted by the
defendant is deceptive similar to that of the plaintiff, and the malafide
conduct of the defendant in light of his previous employment with the
-- 14 of 15 --
NIIR PROJECT CONSULTANCY SERVICES through Mrs. Veena Gupta(Sole prop.) vs.
SANDEEP KUMAR BANSLA
CS (Comm) No. 311/25 Page 14 of 14
plaintiff, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to
protection.
41.Plaintiff has also claimed damages. But no evidence to show the damages
or to quantify has been placed by the plaintiff in that regard. However, to
recognize the statutory and common law rights of the plaintiff in the
trademark in question, a sum of Rs.1,000/- is awarded to the plaintiff in
that regard.
RELIEF :-
42.Thus, in light of the above discussion and analyzing the evidence so
produce before the Court, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is
entitled to a decree of permanent injunction in its favour and against the
defendant, in terms of prayer Clause – a, b, c & e of the plaint, and the
defendant, its representatives, assignees etc. are hereby permanently
restrained to use the impugned trademark accordingly.
43.Plaintiff is also entitled to damages @ Rs.1,000/- as a recognition to its
rights and violation by the defendant thereto.
44. The plaintiff is also held entitled to the cost of the Suit.
45.Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly.
46.File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on ( ANIL ANTIL )
28th Day of April, 2026 Distt. Judge, (Comm. Court)-09,
Central District, THC : Delhi.
-- 15 of 15 --