{"id":11767,"date":"2025-11-17T07:27:51","date_gmt":"2025-11-17T07:27:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=11767"},"modified":"2025-11-17T07:35:08","modified_gmt":"2025-11-17T07:35:08","slug":"clarification-on-evidence-based-damages-in-trademark-infringement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clarification-on-evidence-based-damages-in-trademark-infringement\/","title":{"rendered":"Clarification on Evidence-Based Damages in Trademark Infringement"},"content":{"rendered":"<article><!-- Factual Background --><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_83 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clarification-on-evidence-based-damages-in-trademark-infringement\/#Factual_Background_BC_Hasaram_Sons_Vs_Smt_Nirmala_Agarwal_-_Case_Note\" >Factual Background: B.C. Hasaram &amp; Sons Vs Smt. Nirmala Agarwal - Case Note<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clarification-on-evidence-based-damages-in-trademark-infringement\/#Procedural_Background\" >Procedural Background<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clarification-on-evidence-based-damages-in-trademark-infringement\/#Core_Dispute\" >Core Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clarification-on-evidence-based-damages-in-trademark-infringement\/#Appellants_Argument\" >Appellant's Argument<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clarification-on-evidence-based-damages-in-trademark-infringement\/#Respondents_Argument\" >Respondent's Argument<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clarification-on-evidence-based-damages-in-trademark-infringement\/#Judicial_Reasoning_and_Analysis\" >Judicial Reasoning and Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clarification-on-evidence-based-damages-in-trademark-infringement\/#Final_Reasoning\" >Final Reasoning<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clarification-on-evidence-based-damages-in-trademark-infringement\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clarification-on-evidence-based-damages-in-trademark-infringement\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clarification-on-evidence-based-damages-in-trademark-infringement\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/clarification-on-evidence-based-damages-in-trademark-infringement\/#Author_Details\" >Author Details<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<h2 id=\"factual-background\">Factual Background: B.C. Hasaram &amp; Sons Vs Smt. Nirmala Agarwal &#8211; Case Note<\/h2>\n<p>Factual Background: The case revolved around a dispute between two manufacturers of Ayurvedic eye drops. The respondent, Smt. Nirmala Agarwal, was the proprietor of M\/s Karmayogi Sharbhang Muni, who claimed ownership of the registered trademark \u201cNayan Jyoti,\u201d used for Ayurvedic eye drops since 1990. The appellant, B.C. Hasaram &amp; Sons, operated under the management of Radha Krishna Chandnani and his sons, and was engaged in a similar business of manufacturing Ayurvedic medicines. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had adopted and used a deceptively similar mark \u201cAmrit Nayan Jyoti\u201d to market identical Ayurvedic eye drops, leading to confusion among consumers.<\/p>\n<p>According to the plaintiff, her trademark \u201cNayan Jyoti\u201d was well-known under Sections 2(1)(zg) and 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It was also claimed that the defendant\u2019s mark \u201cAmrit Nayan Jyoti\u201d not only infringed upon her registered trademark but also copied her trade dress\u2014this included the orange-white packaging, typography, depiction of a man, and eye symbol\u2014causing deception and dilution of her goodwill.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff also referred to an earlier incident in 2009, when the Director, Ayurveda and Unani Services, Uttarakhand, had issued a warning to the defendant for similar misconduct, resulting in the suspension of their licence. After several years of compliance, the defendant allegedly resumed using the infringing mark in 2023, prompting the plaintiff to initiate legal proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>To verify the alleged infringement, the plaintiff engaged an investigator, who placed an online order for \u201cAmrit Nayan Jyoti\u201d eye drops through the defendant\u2019s website, haridwaryurved.com. The order was delivered in Bhajanpura, Delhi, confirming the defendant\u2019s online sales in the capital city.<\/p>\n<p><!-- Procedural Background --><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-background\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Procedural Background: The plaintiff filed C.S. (COMM) No. 23\/2023 before the Commercial Court, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, seeking a decree of permanent injunction and damages worth \u20b91 crore against the defendant. On 10 May 2023, the trial court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and appointed a Local Commissioner to conduct a search and seizure operation at the defendant\u2019s premises. The Commissioner\u2019s report detailed substantial quantities of goods and packaging materials bearing the infringing mark.<\/p>\n<p>The defendant, however, failed to file its written statement, leading the court to strike off its defence on 5 October 2023. Later, the defendant submitted an affidavit stating that they were no longer manufacturing or selling the disputed products and consented to the decree in terms of one prayer clause of the plaint. Consequently, the interim injunction was made absolute, and the trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to granting a permanent injunction, the District Judge awarded \u20b948,35,610 as compensatory damages and \u20b92,27,514 as costs. The damages were based on the quantity of goods seized and the price of the plaintiff\u2019s products, which the court treated as equivalent to the infringing goods. The decision relied heavily on precedents like Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Amazestore (2019 SCC OnLine Del 8198) and Sandisk LLC v. B-One Mobile (2019 SCC OnLine Del 8022), which supported punitive damages in cases of repeated infringement.<\/p>\n<p>Aggrieved by the computation of damages, B.C. Hasaram &amp; Sons filed the present Regular First Appeal before the Delhi High Court under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 of the CPC.<\/p>\n<p><!-- Core Dispute --><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"core-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute\"><\/span>Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Core Dispute: The appeal raised two core questions before the Delhi High Court: 1. Whether the District Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 2. Whether the damages awarded were based on valid evidence and proper legal reasoning under Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act?<\/p>\n<p><!-- Structured list of core questions (original text preserved above) --><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>Whether the District Court possessed the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit?<\/li>\n<li>Whether the damages awarded were based on valid evidence and proper legal reasoning under Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><!-- Appellant's Argument --><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"appellants-argument\">Appellant&#8217;s Argument<\/h2>\n<p>Appellant&#8217;s Argument: Appellant argued that the District Court had erred both in jurisdictional finding and in computation of damages. It was contended that no admissible evidence was presented to substantiate the claim for \u20b91 crore in damages. The computation of \u20b948,35,610, according to the appellant, was based on flawed assumptions\u2014that the seized goods represented one month\u2019s production and that the defendant had been trading for two months before the injunction. The court, she argued, had wrongly applied Sandisk LLC where counterfeit goods were involved, unlike in the present case where the defendant held a valid licence.<\/p>\n<p>The appellant relied on Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Tosiba Appliances Co. (2024 SCC OnLine Del 5594) and Gujarat Ginning &amp; Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Swadeshi Mills Co. Ltd. (1938 SCC OnLine Bom 94), emphasizing that damages must be proven through evidence and not speculation. The appellant also asserted that the District Court incorrectly used the product\u2019s retail price (\u20b945 per unit) instead of calculating the profit margin or actual loss caused to the plaintiff, contrary to the principle of compensatory damages under Koninklijke Philips.<\/p>\n<p><!-- Respondent's Argument --><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"respondents-argument\">Respondent&#8217;s Argument<\/h2>\n<p>Respondent&#8217;s Argument: Respondent defended the District Court\u2019s judgment, submitting that the damages were reasonably estimated in the absence of the defendant\u2019s financial records. The Local Commissioner\u2019s report, he argued, provided sufficient foundation for computing damages, supported by decisions like Haldiram India Pvt. Ltd. v. Berachah Sales Corporation (2023 SCC OnLine Del 8599) and Puma SE v. Ashok Kumar (2023 SCC OnLine Del 2440), where damages were allowed based on reasonable estimation when the infringing party withheld key data. He further noted that the defendant had, through an affidavit, consented to a decree, implying acceptance of liability.<\/p>\n<p><!-- Judicial Reasoning and Analysis --><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"judicial-reasoning-analysis\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Reasoning_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Judicial Reasoning and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Judicial Reasoning and Analysis: The Delhi High Court examined the case in detail, identifying the two principal issues as jurisdiction and quantification of damages.<\/p>\n<p>On territorial jurisdiction, the Court referred to the precedent of Banyan Tree Holding (P) Ltd. v. A. Murali Krishna Reddy (2009 SCC OnLine Del 3780), which introduced the \u201csliding scale\u201d and \u201ceffects\u201d tests for online transactions. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction in online trademark disputes arises only when the website is interactive and specifically targets customers in the jurisdiction, causing injury to the plaintiff\u2019s goodwill or business. Applying this principle, the Court found that the plaintiff\u2019s investigator had successfully purchased the infringing product online, with delivery and invoicing in Bhajanpura, Delhi. Thus, the defendant\u2019s activities satisfied both tests, validating the trial court\u2019s jurisdictional finding.<\/p>\n<p>On the issue of damages, the Court carefully analyzed Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act and Rule 20 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, which govern the award of damages in IP disputes. The High Court clarified that a plaintiff claiming damages must provide a reasonable estimate backed by foundational facts and evidence, either documentary or oral, showing actual or probable loss. The Court reiterated that damages cannot rest on speculative calculations or assumptions unsupported by record.<\/p>\n<p>The Court observed that the plaintiff\u2019s claim for damages was first introduced in the written submissions and not supported by affidavit evidence. No witness was cross-examined on the computation of damages, and the trial court\u2019s reliance on the Local Commissioner\u2019s report to determine one month\u2019s stock as the basis for damages was deemed speculative. The assumption that the defendant\u2019s business operated for two months before injunction was also found unsubstantiated.<\/p>\n<p>In light of Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba (supra), the Bench underscored that speculative or hypothetical assertions cannot justify substantial monetary awards. The plaintiff, having failed to provide a rational evidentiary basis linking the infringement to actual financial loss, had not discharged the burden of proof. Therefore, the damages decree was unsustainable in law.<\/p>\n<p>The Court further emphasized that compensatory damages should reflect either actual loss to the plaintiff or unjust enrichment of the defendant. The absence of a reasoned, evidence-based calculation risked arbitrary enrichment, which goes against the compensatory principles underlying Section 135 of the Trade Marks Act.<\/p>\n<p><!-- Final Reasoning --><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"final-reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Reasoning\"><\/span>Final Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Final Reasoning: The Delhi High Court upheld the finding of territorial jurisdiction and the injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark \u201cAmrit Nayan Jyoti.\u201d However, it set aside the award of \u20b948,35,610 as damages on the ground of lack of evidence and misapplication of principles. The matter was remanded to the District Court for fresh determination limited to the issue of damages and account of profits. Both parties were granted liberty to produce evidence and material to assist the Court in re-evaluating damages in accordance with law. No order as to costs was passed.<\/p>\n<p><!-- Conclusion --><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"conclusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Conclusion: This decision by the Delhi High Court reinforces the importance of evidence-based adjudication in intellectual property disputes. While the Court firmly upheld the territorial jurisdiction principle from Banyan Tree, it reiterated that damages in trademark cases cannot be based on assumptions or estimates but must be proven through reliable evidence. The ruling aligns with the emerging jurisprudence that separates injunctive relief\u2014which may be granted on a prima facie showing of infringement\u2014from compensatory damages, which demand concrete proof of loss or gain.<\/p>\n<p>By remanding the matter for fresh assessment, the Court ensured fairness and prevented arbitrary enrichment while reaffirming the procedural discipline necessary for quantification of damages in IP litigation.<\/p>\n<p><!-- Case Details --><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"case-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><!-- Original text preserved -->Case Title: B.C. Hasaram &amp; Sons Vs Smt. Nirmala Agarwal, Proprietor of Karmayogi Sharbhang Muni<br \/>\nCase Number: RFA (COMM) 214\/2025<br \/>\nNeutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9867-DB<br \/>\nDate of Judgment: 12 November 2025<br \/>\nCourt: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<br \/>\nCoram: Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla<\/p>\n<p><!-- Tabular presentation added for readability (duplicates above content without altering it) --><\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Title<\/th>\n<td>B.C. Hasaram &amp; Sons Vs Smt. Nirmala Agarwal, Proprietor of Karmayogi Sharbhang Muni<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Number<\/th>\n<td>RFA (COMM) 214\/2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Neutral Citation<\/th>\n<td>2025:DHC:9867-DB<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Date of Judgment<\/th>\n<td>12 November 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Court<\/th>\n<td>High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Coram<\/th>\n<td>Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><!-- Disclaimer --><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p><!-- Author --><\/p>\n<h2 id=\"author-details\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Author_Details\"><\/span>Author Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n<\/article>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Factual Background: B.C. Hasaram &amp; Sons Vs Smt. Nirmala Agarwal &#8211; Case Note Factual Background: The case revolved around a dispute between two manufacturers of Ayurvedic eye drops. The respondent, Smt. Nirmala Agarwal, was the proprietor of M\/s Karmayogi Sharbhang Muni, who claimed ownership of the registered trademark \u201cNayan Jyoti,\u201d used for Ayurvedic eye drops<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-11767","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11767","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11767"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11767\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11767"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11767"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11767"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}