The suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from using the plaintiffs registered Trade Mark or any other Trade mark which is any way visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered Trade Mark "ATULPUF" or "ATULJUF "or in any manner infringing the plaintiffs Registered Trade Mark No1195219 and to surrender all the invoices, letter heads, etc., bearing the name "ATULJUF" and also to render an account of profits made by them.
2. The plaintiffs are engaged in the manufacture and sale of different types of windscreen glass for automobiles. Since 2001, the plaintiffs conceived and adopted the unique trademark ATULPUF with respect to their goods. The Trademark ATULPUF has been registered with the authorities as per the Act and thus the plaintiffs became the registered Proprietors of the trade mark ATULPUF in respect of the goods namely (a) Toughened and laminated glasses (b) Glass & Glassware (c) Wooden scrap, (d) Windscreen glasses. The plaintiffs have acquired enormous goodwill in respect of the goods on which the ATULPUF Trade Marks are affixed throughout India. The Turn over of the plaintiffs with respect to the above mentioned goods have grown from 2.19 crores in 2002-2003 to 16.14 crores in 2008-2009.
3. The plaintiffs came to know about the identical goods being put on the market under a structurally, phonetically and deceptively similar trade mark ATULJUF by the defendant. The plaintiffs caused a notice through their counsel dated 29.01.2005 to the defendant. The defendant sent a vague and evasive reply. The defendant also filed an application for registration of Trade Mark ATULJUF and the same was resisted by the plaintiffs. The defendant has adopted the deceptively similar mark ATULJUF to the plaintiffs registered Trade Mark ATULPUF solely for the purpose of exploiting the commercial goodwill. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit.
4. The defendant was called absent and set exparte. The first plaintiff has been examined as P.W.1. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 were also marked. The plaintiffs registered Trade Mark certificate is marked as Ex.P.2. The copy of the Trademark journal advertisement given by the defendant is marked as Ex.P.8. The reply given by the defendant to the notice issued by the plaintiff is also marked as Ex.P.6. The reply given by the defendant is only evasive and not to the points raised by the plaintiffs. Through the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents marked through him, the plaintiffs have established their case. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs as claimed for.
In the result, the suit is decreed as prayed for with costs.
22.03.2017 Index : Yes / No tsvn P.KALAIYARASAN, J tsvn C.S.No.827 of 2009 22-03-2017 http://www.judis.nic.in