9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laintiff - Decided in favour of assessee. - SUIT No. 263 OF 2007 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2013 - Mr. S. J. KATHAWALLA, J. For the Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Kane a/w Mr. Ashutosh Kane, Mr. Hiren Kamod and Ms. Aditi Kulkarni JUDGMENT : 1. This is an action for infringement of trade mark and passing off committed by the Defendant by using almost identical and/or similar trade mark EASY WASH upon and in relation to liquid detergent. The Plaintiff is a company established under the Companies Act, 1956 and is the present (subsequent) proprietor of the trade mark EZEE registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 under Nos.410491 and 513930 both in class 03 in respect of detergents in liquid form for laundry use and soaps, dete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mark EZEE duly certified by the Plaintiff s Chartered Accountant, original advertisement of the Plaintiff s trade mark EZEE published in the January 2013 issue of the magazine Marie Claire, original article from Economic Times dated 22.11.2006 placing the Plaintiff s EZEE brand in the list of Superbrands, original advertisement of the Defendant s liquid detergent bearing the impugned trade mark EASY WASH in the Times of India, Mumbai Edition, dated 15.10.2006. 4. Mr. Kane, Learned Advocate appearing for the Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark EZEE and that the Plaintiff has been continuously, openly and extensively using the said trade mark EZEE upon in respect of the said goods since Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tively similar to Plaintiff s trade mark and by the use of the impugned trade mark the Defendant is infringing the Plaintiff s trade mark and is passing off its products as that of the Plaintiff s products. 8. The Defendant has remained absent despite service of writ of summons by the Plaintiff. The evidence of the witness is uncontroverted. The Plaintiff is not pressing for damages other than punitive damages. 9. In the circumstances, suit is decreed in terms of Prayer Clauses (a) and (b). Costs to be quantified as per rules. 10. Considering the nature of infringement and with a view to dissuade others from indulging into such activities it is imperative that some punitive damages are awarded to the Plaintiff. I, therefore award puni ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
