1985 (11) TMI 239 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competency of Shri Rahul H. Rai to institute the suit.
2. Misjoinder of parties.
3. Ownership of the trade mark/house mark 'Superflame'.
4. Likelihood of passing off by the defendants.
5. Nature of the suit (false, vexatious, frivolous) and entitlement to special costs.
6. Relief.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue No. 1: Competency of Shri Rahul H. Rai to institute the suit
The court examined whether Shri Rahul H. Rai was competent to institute the suit on behalf of Super Parts Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff was described as "Globe Super Parts (Sole proprietor Super Parts Pvt. Ltd.), 17/1, Mathura Road, Faridabad (Haryana)." The court found that Super Parts Pvt. Ltd. was the actual plaintiff and that Rahul H. Rai had the authority to institute the suit, sign, and verify the plaint on behalf of the company. The court held that the use of brackets indicated that Globe Super Parts was equal to Super Parts Pvt. Ltd., and the authorization given by the Board of Directors to Rahul H. Rai was valid. Therefore, the issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 2: Misjoinder of parties
The court considered whether there was a misjoinder of parties. Defendant No. 1 was "Blue Superflame Industries," and Defendant No. 2 was Ganga Ram Verma, who was alleged to be a partner or sole proprietor. The court found a connection between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, as Defendant 2 had worked as a contractor for the plaintiff and had knowledge of the plaintiff's business. The court concluded that there was no misjoinder of parties, and the issue was decided accordingly.

Issue No. 3: Ownership of the trade mark/house mark 'Superflame'
The court examined whether the plaintiff was the owner of the trade mark 'Superflame' in respect of gas appliances. The court noted that 'Superflame' was not a registered trade mark and that the suit was a passing off action. The court found that 'Superflame' was a coined or fancy word, not a common language word, and had been exclusively appropriated by the plaintiff. The court held that the plaintiff had established prior use of the mark and that it had acquired a secondary significance in the market, indicating the plaintiff's goods. Therefore, the issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 4: Likelihood of passing off by the defendants
The court considered whether the defendants' use of the trading style "Blue Superflame Industries" was likely to pass off their goods as those of the plaintiff. The court found that the word 'Superflame' was prominently associated with the plaintiff and that the defendants' use of the word in their trading style was likely to create confusion. The court held that the defendants had adopted the word 'Superflame' to trade upon the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill. Therefore, the issue was decided in favor of the plaintiff.

Issue No. 5: Nature of the suit (false, vexatious, frivolous) and entitlement to special costs
The court did not find the suit to be false, vexatious, or frivolous. The defendants' claim for special costs was not upheld.

Issue No. 6: Relief
The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the word 'Superflame' in their trading style. The court denied the plaintiff's prayer for accounting but ordered the defendants to deliver up all infringing labels and related materials. The defendants were directed to file an affidavit disclosing the number of labels and other materials within two weeks and to deliver them up within four weeks. The plaintiffs were awarded the costs of the suit.

Additional Observations:
The court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Indian Standards Institute and the Consumer Protection Cell of the Delhi Administration to ensure consumer safety regarding gas burner designs.