2010 (9) TMI 1226 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for restraining the defendants.
2. Application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order.
3. Application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for contempt of the injunction order.
4. Application under Order 340 Cr.P.C. for perjury.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for restraining the defendants:
The plaintiff sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the trademarks "TOYOTA," "toyota device," "INNOVA," and "PRIUS." The plaintiff claimed prior use and registration of these marks in several countries, asserting that the defendant's use amounted to passing off and dilution of the plaintiff's trademarks. The plaintiff provided extensive evidence of its international reputation and goodwill, including sales figures and advertisements in various publications.

2. Application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order:
The defendant argued that the plaintiff had delayed in bringing the action, knowing since 2003 about the defendant's use of the mark "PRIUS." The defendant claimed to be the registered owner of the trademark "PRIUS" since 2002 and provided evidence of continuous use and business growth under this mark. The court found that the plaintiff had not disclosed the registration date of the defendant's trademark and had delayed in filing the suit, which indicated acquiescence and waiver of rights.

3. Application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC for contempt of the injunction order:
The plaintiff claimed the defendant continued to use the trademarks despite the injunction. However, the court found no evidence of violation of the court's order by the defendant. The defendant's use of the marks was found to be for identifying the compatibility of its auto accessories with the plaintiff's vehicles, which was protected under Section 30(1)(b) and 30(2)(d) of the Trademark Act.

4. Application under Order 340 Cr.P.C. for perjury:
The plaintiff accused the defendant of making false statements in the affidavit. The court, however, found no merit in this application, stating that the plaintiff failed to establish the ingredients of perjury.

Findings:
The court concluded that the plaintiff had not made a prima facie case for an injunction. The plaintiff's delay and non-disclosure of crucial facts, such as the defendant's registration of the trademark "PRIUS" since 2002, led to the dismissal of the plaintiff's applications. The defendant's use of the trademarks was deemed honest and necessary for indicating the compatibility of its products. The court emphasized that the balance of convenience favored the defendant, whose business would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction continued, while the plaintiff had no presence in the Indian market.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the defendant's application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC, setting aside the ex parte injunction. The plaintiff's applications under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, and Order 340 Cr.P.C. were dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff had not established any infringement or passing off by the defendant and highlighted the plaintiff's delay and non-disclosure as critical factors in its decision.