XX is a renowned company manufacturing different kinds of soft drinks. The company got registered a Trademark SOFTA for its soft drinks. The soft drinks became very popular with customers and the company registered a goo

My decision regarding the claim for damages made by XX against YY would be to award damages to XX . Justification: It is generally accepted by Courts that a party which absents itself from the Court proceedings should not be able to avoid the rigours of damages, as that would amount to giving an escape route to such absent parties from the proceedings. Damages are awarded to discourage and dishearten law breakers who indulge in violation with impunity. The rationale for this is that the defendant YY chose to stay away from Court to escape damages. Therefore, damages can be awarded to XX against YY. Relevant Case Laws: In their judgments in Hindustan Machines Vs Royal Electrical Appliances case and in Relaxo Rubber Limited and another Vs. Selection Foot Wear and another , courts awarded damages in cases of abstention by a party without adequate reason. In M/S Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. Govind Yadav & Anr. , the plaintiff claimed that the defendant's trademark "Fauji" was deceptively similar to "Officer's Choice". The claim was based on similarity of concept (Fauji being Hindi for military officer) and similar packaging in the alcoholic beverage business. Though the court dismissed the infringement suit in this specific case due to lack of deceptive similarity, the principle of awarding damages for infringement when established is relevant. In Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J. P. & Co. Mysore , the Supreme Court stated that to conclude whether a mark is deceptively similar to another, the comprehensive and vital features of the two are to be considered. It would be enough if the questionable mark bears such an overall resemblance to the registered mark as would be likely to deceive a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. This principle supports the finding of infringement in the present case, which then justifies damages. In M/S Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd. v. Mr. Raj Niwas , the Court compared the logos of both the plaintiff (MDH) and the defendant (MHS) and found strong visual resemblance despite weak phonetic resemblance, especially since both parties were in the same business (spices). The registered trademark of the plaintiff was held to be infringed by the defendant. This case highlights that even with some phonetic difference, visual similarity and same business activity can lead to infringement, justifying damages. In the given case, YY's adoption of 'SIFTA' for soft drinks, which is deceptively similar to XX's registered 'SOFTA' for the same goods, coupled with YY's deliberate absence from the proceedings after an initial appearance, strongly indicates an attempt to infringe and benefit from XX's goodwill. This conduct warrants the award of damages to XX to compensate for the harm caused and to deter such unlawful practices.