9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (5) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inging the well-known trade mark of the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed and an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising pressure cookers or goods of any description bearing a trade mark that is identical or similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark TATA. The defendants are also directed to destroy the goods and packaging material or any other printed material bearing the trade mark TATA within a period of four weeks from today. With regards the relief of damages prayed the evidence of the plaintiff has gone unrebutted, which includes loss of business, reputation and goodwill in the market. Since the amount of damages claimed is based on assessment of the pl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured and/or services rendered by it under the trademark/name TATA. 3. It is stated that the House of TATA comprises over 50 companies which use TATA as a key and essential part of their corporate name. Additionally, it is also contended that there are numerous overseas companies, philanthropic bodies and autonomous public institutions which are promoted by the plaintif. And that plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademarks pertaining to and/or comprising the word TATA in relation to various goods falling across various classes of the Fourth Schedule of the Trade Mark Rules, 2002. By virtue of the said registration, it is contended that plaintiff has the exclusive right in the said trademark and is thus entitled to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferent goods and/or services. 6. The plaintiff submits that in September 2004, it came across pressure cookers in the market bearing the trade mark TATA. The impugned products contained the trade name TATA GOLD‟, which is represented in a manner wherein the mark TATA is portrayed in bold and prominent manner, while the mark GOLD is written in small print. Upon further investigation, it appeared that these goods are being manufactured and/or sold by the defendant no. 1, Mr. Amit Mahna, who is the proprietor of defendant no.2, Bali Kitchenware Industries, which is located at No. 48/1, Sayed Nangoli, New Delhi 110041. Defendant no. 3, Mr. Hans Raj Mahna, is the proprietor of defendant no. 4, Hamnani Stores, which is located at 891-C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rket by creating the impression that the defendant‟s products emanate from the plaintiff or have some connection, nexus, association, affiliation, or endorsement with the plaintiff. And that the impugned goods are bound to confuse and mislead the public to their origin and induce them to buy the said products believing them to be originating from the plaintiff. 8. The plaintiff states that the cause of action arose for the present suit in September 2004, when it came across the impugned goods, bearing the mark TATA. And that the cause of action continues to subsist till such time the defendants are permanently restrained by an order of injunction. And that this Court has the necessary territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a reputation in India and the use of the mark without due cause takes unfair advantage of or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or repute of the registered trade mark. 11. This Court in the Manoj Dodia Case (supra) has held: Considering that (a) the mark TATA whether word mark or device or in conjunction with other words is being used for last more than 100 years, in respect of a large number of goods and services, (b) Tata Group, which is probably the oldest and largest industrial and business conglomerate having a turnover of Rs. 96,000 crores in the year 2005-06, the Tata Group comprises a number of large companies, millions of customers are using one or more TATA products throughout India and other countries, (c) there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, it may cause damage to the well-known trade mark by reducing or diluting the trade mark s power to indicate the source. 13. In the instant case, I have perused through the report of the Local Commissioner along with the list of inventory prepared by him of the impugned goods which were first taken in his custody and later released upon superdarinama. I have also perused through the other documents placed on record. I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has established a case of passing off with respect to the defendant‟s products carrying the plaintiff‟s trade mark TATA. The impugned goods are also clearly infringing the well-known trade mark of the plaintiff. 14. The suit of the plaintiff is accordingly decreed and an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
