9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (10) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Bangalore 560 071. The present suit is being filed through Mr. G. Venkatesh who is the authorized signatory of the plaintiff and is duly authorized to sign and verify the pleadings and institute the suit on its behalf. 2. The plaintiff's line of operation includes wireless software products and software services to leading semiconductor manufacturers, wireless handset developers, network equipment and test and measurement companies and service providers globally. It is pleaded that the company Silicon Automation Systems Limited, later changed to Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., has over 3000 employees and operates from state of the art research and development centres in Bangalore, Chennai and Pune in India and also has R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that the plaintiff has earned the status of a world renowned telecom solutions company and offers services across the communications value chain - semiconductors, handsets, networks and carriers. 8. The plaintiff's trademark falls under the category of well known trademark according to Section 11(e) of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The plaintiff has extensively used the SASKEN trademark continuously which has resulted in extensive recognition of its mark in the minds of consumers and is well known in several countries of the world. The plaintiff has extensively advertised and promoted its SASKEN trademark through the medium of electronic and print media and spent around Rs. 13.502 million in 2007. 9. In September, 2006, the plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... N trademark/trading style will be diluted if the defendants are allowed to use identical or similar marks with impunity. 12. The use of the trademark SASKEN in the defendants company name and trading style is an infringement of the plaintiff's statutory rights in its registration No.979751 in Class 16 and registration No.969221 in class 9. It is a recognized fact that infringement of trademarks hurts not just the proprietor. 13. The plaintiff has claimed damages for the loss of reputation and goodwill on account of defendants' illegal activities at an approximate value of Rs.20 lac. The plaintiff prayed for passing an permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their proprietor or partners as the case may be, their office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efendants with that of the plaintiff. 15. Summons were issued in the suit on 31st May, 2007 and an ad interim order was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants thereafter filed the written statement on 8th August, 2007 but were proceeded ex parte on 2nd July, 2009 when the defendants' counsel failed to appear even on second call. The plaintiff was directed to file evidence by way of affidavit. Statement of PW-1 Ms. Beena Ganapathy was recorded on 25th September, 2009 and 5th October, 2009. The plaintiff's case has gone unrebutted as no evidence has produced by the defendants to support their case. The plaintiff's witness has proved the documents annexed by the plaintiff with the plaint and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onfusion and deception is necessary in order to prove the case. 18. In the case of Sunder Parmanand Lalwani and Ors. Vs. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1969 Bombay 24 at Page 36 Para 49 it is held as under: 49. In this case, the goods are totally different. There is no trade connection between them There is no connection in the course of trade nor any common trade channels. There are factors against holding that there would be any danger of deception or confusion. But we must consider the factors which tend to show that there is a likelihood of creating deception or confusion. The opponents have been using their mark on a very large scale since 1937. Their sales in 1956 exceeded Rs. 30 crores. Their publicity is wide spread and large. In 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or are most likely to assume, that they originated from the proprietor of the mark, namely, the opponents. 19. Therefore, the plaintiff has also established its case for passing off. In view of my above discussion, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of clause (a) and (b) of para 30 of the prayer clause of the plaint. The defendants, their proprietor or partners as the case may be, their officers, servants and agents and all others acting for and on their behalf are hereby restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, advertising or dealing in goods of pharmaceuticals or any other goods under the trademark/trading style SASKEN or any deceptively similar marks amounting to infringement of the plaintif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
