9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 931X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded to take advantage of the tremendous reputation which the plaintiff-appellant has earned in the commercial world. The controversy arises in the following backdrop: 2. The appellant Larsen and Toubro Ltd. for short 'LandT' is engaged in diverse business activities including transportation and infrastructural development, finance, information technology within and outside this country. Nearly a dozen subsidiary companies using the 'LandT' prefix with their names have been incorporated over the years to carry on the said business activities. The plaintiff's case is that it has applied for registering the marks 'Larsen and Toubro' and 'LandT' which applications are pending consideration. The plaintiff's further case is that its turnover and annual profits run into thousands of crores and that goods manufactured and services provided by it are being advertised extensively in print and visual media. The publicity expenditure, has according to the plaintiff-appellant, gone up from ₹ 7 crores in 1991-1992 to ₹ 53 crores in 2001-2002. Suffice it to say that according to the averments made in the plaint, the words/abbreviation 'L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T. The defendants further alleged that defendant No. 1 was carrying on his family business under the trade name Lachmi Narain Trades since April 2001 and that the brand name LNT was nothing but the abbreviated form of its business name. It was also alleged that the first concern of the defendant started in the name of Lachmi Narain Stores at Ooty in the year 1952 followed by certain other firms in the name of Lachmi Narain Electricals, Lachmi Narain Trades, Lachmi Narain Cables and Lachmi Narain Manas Export Oriented unit. It was further alleged that the defendants have been trading in electric miniature circuit breakers, electric rotary switches, electric PVC insulating tape, electric fluorescent chokes under the trade name LNT and that the plaintiff was aware of the business carried on by them. There was, according to the defendant, neither any similarity in the brand names nor any confusion likely to arise out of the user of the said names. The defendants on that premise sought dismissal of the suit and vacation of the ex parte order issued by the Court. 6. Rival contentions urged by learned Counsel for the parties led the learned Single Judge to record the following signifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r allowing the defendants to continue using the same in an extended form. The appellant had, according to the learned Counsel, no objection to the use of the full form of 'Lachmi Narain Trades' by the defendants-respondents herein so long as the defendants did not use the abbreviated form of LNT or ELENTE which was likely to continue the confusion in the minds of the customers that the products being sold by the defendants were those of the plaintiff's. It was contended that the operative part of the order passed by the learned Single Judge was in conflict with the finding recorded by him to the effect that LandT or ELENTE were associated with the plaintiff's goods which had acquired a definite and distinct reputation amongst the buyers. Reliance in support was placed by Mr.Chandhiok upon the following passage of the order passed by the learned Single Judge: 12. In so far as reputation acquired by the plaintiff in respect of its goods is concerned, it hardly needs elaborate discussion. From the documents on record, sales figures and amounts spent on advertisements etc., it is clearly established that the plaintiff is a market leader in respect of its goods are we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n LNT/ELENTE by the defendants, he, in our opinion, committed a mistake that needs to be corrected. 12. Mr. Kaul, learned Counsel for the respondents, however, argued that since some of the products marketed by the defendants under the trademark/logo LNT/ELENTE are not even manufactured or marketed by the plaintiff-appellant herein there was no justification for restraining the use of the said trademark or logo vis a vis such products. We do not think so. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge the test of 'field of activity' is no more valid. The question really is one of real likelihood of confusion or deception among the consumers and the resultant damage to the plaintiff. The legal position on the subject is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions rendered by this Court as also the Apex Court. 13. In Sunder Parmanand Lalwani and Ors. v. Caltex (India) Ltd . AIR1969Bom24 , a division bench of Bombay High court while dealing with the question whether there was any tangible danger of confusion between Caltex watches and Caltex petrol and various other oil products of the opponents, observed that although the goods were totally different and there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is likely to be caused or a wrong impression created, as if the product was of some one else. 15. In Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschft and Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan AIR1994Delhi239 , a single judge of this Court while issuing an injunction against the defendant from using the word 'Benz' with reference to any underwear manufactured by them in the face of the same being used by the plaintiffs therein for their cars, observed as follows: 5. I think it will be a great perversion of the law relating to Trade Marks and Designs, if a mark of the order of the 'Mercedes Benz' its symbol, a three pointed star, is humbled by indiscriminate colourable imitation by all or anyone; whether they are persons, who make undergarments like the defendant, or any one else. Such a mark is not up for grabs? not available to any person to apply upon anything or goods. That name which is well known in India and world wide, with respect to cars, as is its symbol a three pointed star. 16. In Kiriloskar Diesel Recon (P) Ltd. v. Kirloskar Proprietary Ltd. AIR1996Bom149 , Bombay High Court while dealing with a similar contention as is raised in the present case observed as follows: 13 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sible extension of plaintiff's business or activities. 18. In Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra Mahindra Ltd . AIR2002SC117 , the Apex Court after extensively quoting with approval from the above judgments summed up the principles applicable in deciding an application for interim injunction as follows: Without intending to be exhaustive some of the principles which are accepted as well settled may be stated thus: that whether there is a likelihood of deception or confusion arising is a matter for decision by the court, and no witness is entitled to say whether the mark is likely to deceive or to cause confusion; that all factors which are likely to create or allay deception or confusion must be considered in combination; that broadly speaking, factors creating confusion would be, for example, the nature of the market itself, the class of customers, the extent of the reputation, the trade channels, the existence of any connection in course of trade, and others. 19. We have, in the light of the above pronouncements, no difficulty in holding that the dissimilarity in some of the products in which the parties trade does not make any material difference in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
