JUDGMENT
1. These First Appeals From Order have been preferred against the order dated 8-5-2002, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 5, Ballia in Original Suit No. 1 of 2002, allowing the application of the plaintiff/respondent and issuing ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from using trade mark "Pakeeza" on the product of indigo.
2. Respondent No. 1, hereinafter called the plaintiff filed suit No. 1 of 2002 against the appellants and respondents Nos. 2 to 4 hereinafter called the defendants, for permanent injunction, restraining them from using trade mark "Pakeeza" on their product of indigo with the allegations that it was doing business of indigo by producing ultra mine blue indigo and was using trade mark "Pakeeza Ultra Mine Blue" which it got registered under Copyright Act under registration No. A57022/1999, dated 3-11-1999 and was using the said trade mark since June, 1993. In the last week of August, 2001 the plaintiff came across the infringing of its good bearing identical trade mark "Pakeeza" introduced by the defendants having the same get up, colour, scheme and design of the level as that of the plaintiffs. The label on the bottles adopted and used by the defendants was almost Identical or deceptively similar with the label of the plaintiff. Consequently, the purchasers and intending purchasers would be deceived and defend-
ants' goods were likely to be passed off as goods of plaintiff. The defendants were thus making illegal profits. The plaintiff being registered copy right owner of trade mark "Pakeeza" had a facie title, balance of convenience was in its favour and it would suffer irreparable injury in case the defendants were not restrained from using plaintiffs trade mark.
3. The plaintiff moved an application for using of ad interim injunction on the grounds mentioned above.
4. Defendants 1 to 3 filed objection against the said application contending inter alia that firm of defendant No. 3 was doing business of Indigo since 1989 at Indore (M.P.) under the trade mark "Pakeeza" and the above trade mark was of production of super liquid blue indigo. The registration number of Pakeeza Chemicals was 204907 and trade mark was Taj Mahal. Subsequently, the above trade mark was changed showing a baby having cloth and a bucket. However, the business at Indore was closed in the year 1989 due to riot in the city and defendant No, 3 shifted its business to Ballia. He also came in contact with one Mohd. All with whom he started business since July, 1991 under the name and style of M/s. Pakeeza Chemicals at GNK Chhapra, Ballia and applied for registration of proprietorship along with Udai Narain and Mohd. Ali. Observing goodwill of "Pakeeza Chemicals" the defendant No, 3 got registration in their name in Sale Tax Department. On the objection by the defendants they disassociated from Pakeeza Chemicals and started new business under the name and style New Pakeeza Bombay Chemicals since June, 1993. The defendant No. 2 Ashish Chemicals was manufacturing indigo since 1996-97 under the name and style of Golden Pakeeza, which was also registered by the Industries Department. Defendant No. 1 Prem Shankar was doing business of washing powder and loose indigo since 1982, which was registered in Industries Department in the year 1985-86, Subsequently he started business of pack indigo in the year 1996 under the name and style Pakeeza P. Chemicals. The plaintiff was aware of the fact that the trade marks of defendants 1 and 3 were separate. They further contended that the plaintiff had no prima facie case and balance of convenience did not lie in its favour and it would not suffer any irreparable Injury.
5. The learned trial Court on considering the case and evidence of the parties held that the defendants were using the trade mark registered in favour of plaintiffs and they were causing damage to its business. With these findings he allowed the application and restrained the defendants as mentioned above.
6. Aggrieved with the above order, the defendant No. 3 filed First Appeal From Order No. 1176 of 2002 and defendant No. 2 filed First Appeal From Order No. 1177 of 2002.
7. Both the appeals have been preferred against the same order but by separate defendants. The matter under controversy in both the appeals is the same, therefore , both the appeals are being decided by a common judgment with the consent of the parties learned counsel.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 had not obtained registration of its trade mark as required by Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and, therefore, it cannot file a suit for infringement of alleged trade mark.
10. Admittedly, the trade mark of the plaintiff has yet not been registered but plaintiff had applied for registration before the authority concerned prior to filing of the suit. The plaintiff had also obtained copyright under Copyright Act, 1957. Learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the suit for infringement of trade mark for which the application for registration was pending was competent. In support of his above contention he placed reliance on a decision of Madras High Court in P.L. Anwar Basha v. M. Natarajan, AIR 1980 Madras 56.
11. Section 23 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 reads as under :--
23. Registration :-- (1) Subject to the provisions of Section 19, when an application for registration of a trade mark in Part A or Part B of the register has been accepted and either-
(a) the application has not been opposed and the time for notice of opposition has expired; or
(b) the application has been opposed and the opposition has been decided in favour of the applicant;
the Registrar shall, unless the Central Government otherwise directs, register the said trade mark in Part A or Part B of the register, as the case may be, and the trade mark when registered shall be registered as of the date of the making of the said application and that date shall, subject to the provisions of Section 131 be deemed to be the date of registration.
(2) On the registration of a trade mark, the Registrar shall issue to the applicant a certificate in the prescribed form of the registration thereof, sealed with the seal of the Trade Marks Registry.
(3) Where registration of a trade mark is not completed within twelve months from the date of the application by reason of default on the part of the applicant, the Registrar may, after giving notice to the applicant in the prescribed manner, treat the application as abandoned unless it is completed within time specified in that behalf in the notice.
12. Section 27 of the said Act which deals with the effect of registration says that no person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent, or to recover damages for, the infringement of an unregistered trade mark. Sub-section (2) of Section 27 of the said Act says that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to affect rights of action against any person for passing off goods as the goods of another person or the remedies' in respect thereof.
13. Section 28 of the said Act which deals with the rights conferred by registration reads as under :--
28. Rights conferred by registration.--
(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the registration of a trade mark in Part A or Part B of the register shall if valid give to the registered proprietor of the trade mark the exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to the goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered and to obtain relief in respect of infringement of the trade mark in the manner provided by this Act.
(2) The exclusive right to the use of a trade mark given under Sub-section (1) shall be subject to any conditions and limitations in which the registration is subject.
(3) Where two or more persons are registered proprietors of trade marks, which are identical with or nearly resemble each other, the exclusive rights to the use of any those trade marks shall not (except so far as their respective rights are subject to any conditions or limitations entered on the register) be deemed to have been acquired by any one of those persons as against any other of those persons merely by registration, of the trade mark but each of those persons has otherwise the same rights as against other persons (not being registered users using by way of permitted use as he would have if he were the sole registered proprietor.
14. Section 29 which deals with infringement of trade mark reads as under :--
29. Infringement of trade marks.-- (1) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being the registered proprietor of the trade mark or a registered user thereof using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of a trade mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trade mark, in relation to any goods in respect of which" the trade mark is registered and in such manner as to render the use of the mark likely to be taken as being used as a trade mark.
(2) In an action for infringement of a trade mark registered in Part B of the register an injunction or other relief shall not be granted to the plaintiff if the defendant establishes to the satisfaction of the Court that the use of mark of which the plaintiff complains is not likely to deceive or cause confusion or to be taken as indicating a connection in the course of trade between the goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered and some person having the right, either as registered proprietor or as registered user, to use the trade mark.
15. Interpreting Ss. 23, 27 and 29 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the Madras High Court held in the case of PL Anwar pasha (AIR 1980 Madras 56) (supra) that it is contended, by the counsel for the respondent that the suit by the plaintiff at the time of institution is not competent and he could not institute any proceeding for the infringement of a trade mark which was not registered on the date of plaint. But it must be pointed out that under Section 23, the trade mark when registered.
shall be registered as on the date of making of the application for registration of a trade mark in Part A or Part B of the register and that date shall, subject to the provisions of Section 131 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. be deemed to be the date of registration. In the said case it was seen that the date of registration was 18th September, 1969, obviously referring to the date of application, though the certificate was dated 30th November, 1974. The contention of the respondent, therefore, that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit is not correct. Kerly in his book 'Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names' 10th Edition Ch. 15 paragraph 15 at page 309 says :--
'The writ for infringement may be issued before registration of the mark, provided that registration has been applied for, since the registration is dated back to the application."
16. Therefore, it is clear that in view of Section 23 of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. the date of registration of the trade mark of the plaintiff should be taken as 18th September, 1969, the suit is, therefore, competent and the plaintiff can maintain an action for infringement.
17. In the instant case it is not disputed that the plaintiff/respondent had applied for registration of its trade mark on 25-11-1994 and 19th July, 1995 and according to its allegation it was using the impugned trade mark since June, 1993. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff had also got registration of its trade mark under the Copyright Act, vide registration No. A-57022/99, dated 3-11-1999. On the other hand it is not the case of defendants that they had obtained registration of their alleged trade mark either under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 or the Copyright Act. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the defendant was using the trade mark since 1989 and previously his business was in Indore City (MP) under the name and style "Pakeeza Chemicals" and trade mark was "Pakeeza Super Liquid Blue" with Taj Mahal on the label and a doll with bucket and cloth in her hand. He has also relied on the challan etc. showing despatch of his goods bearing said trade mark. But the defendants had not obtained registration of their trade mark. It is also not their case that any application for registration of their trade mark is pending before the competent authority, either under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act or the Copyright Act. The plaintiff having applied for registration of its trade mark prior to filing of suit, has, thus, right to bring the suit for Infringement of the trade mark as the registration of the trade mark subsequent to the date of application, will relate back to the date application as provided under Section 23 of the Trade and Merchandise Act.
18. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the trade mark allegedly used by the plaintiff is not identical with the trade mark of the defendants and therefore, there was no question of any Infringement of the trade mark of plaintiff.
10. The question whether the right of a trade mark has been infringed in a particular case or not has been answered by the Apex Court In Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J, P, and Co.. Mysore, AIR 1972 SC 1359. Relying on the provisions of Section 29(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act and decision of Apex Court in Durga Dutt v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980 and "Kerly's Law of Trade and Merchandise and Trade Names" held that it is, therefore, clear that in order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. They should not be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design and if so whether they are of such a character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other. It would be enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him.
20. In the case of Durga Dutt v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980, it was held as below (at p. 990, para 28) :--
"In an action for infringement, the plaintiff must, no doubt, make out that the use of the defendant's mark is likely to deceive, but where the similarity between the plaintiffs and the defendant's mark is so close either visually phonetically or otherwise and the Court reaches the conclusion that there is imitation, no further evidence is required to establish that the plaintiffs rights are violated, Expressed in an other way, if the essential features of the trade mark of the plaintiff have been adopted by the defendant, the fact that the get up, packing and other writing or marks on the goods or on the packets in which he offers his goods for sale show marked differences or Indicate clearly a trade origin different from that of the registered proprietor of the mark would be immaterial; whereas in the case of pass-Ing off, the defendant may escape liability if he can show that the added matter is sufficient to distinguish his goods from those of the plaintiff."
21. In the light of above, I would like to refer the trade marks used by the parties. The label bearing the trade mark of the plaintiff put on phials and packets of goods is given in Annexure-9 (of the affidavit filed support of appeal) shows that it bears the trade name "Pakeeza" in English and below written in red ink on yellow base "Super Liquid Blue" and below it. written in Hindi as "SUPER LIQUID NEEL" in red colour on yellow base, Below it there is picture of Taj Mahal in a rectangle with a girl adorned in white saree and blouse with white cloth in her hands and a red plastic bucket.
22. The trade mark of defendant in Appeal No. 1176 of 2002 given in Annexure-8 is as below :--
"New Pakeeza Liquid Neel"
Thereafter Hindi version is given as below :--
^^U;w ikfdtk fyfDoM uhy**
23. In between New Pakeeza and Liquid Neel written In Hindi there is picture of Taj Mahal in a circle and besides it there is a photograph of a girl model adorned in white kurta and salwar with a duppatta on her neck and white cloth on her right hand.
24. The trade mark of defendants of Appeal No. 1177 of 2002 bears trade mark name "Golden Pakeeza Super Liquid Blue written in English as well as in Hindi. Word "Golden" are smaller while "Pakeeza" is in bold artistic letters 'super liquid blue' in normal form with red colour. Below the above trade mark there is picture of a temple in a rectangle with picture of a model in white saree with a blue bucket and white shirt in hand.
25. If an ordinary customer is asked to distinguish those two trade marks it will be very difficult for him to note the minute distinguishing features and the trade marks of the defendants so deceptively resemble with the trade mark of plaintiff that it is likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. Similarly the above two trade marks are so close visually and phonetically and by appearance it appear an Imitation of each other. No doubt if the above two marks when placed side by side may exhibit some differences such as spelling of Pakeeza written in Hindi and word 'super' used before Liquid Blue in English and Liquid Neel in Hindi and also difference in the model shown in the mark, yet the main idea left on the mind by both may be the same. A person acquainted with one mark, and not having the two side by side for comparison, might well be deceived. No doubt the model shown in the picture is also in a different dress and in different posture yet the idea conveyed by each is simply showing a girl in ultra white dress. In these circumstances, it would be too much to expect that persons dealing with the trade marked goods, and relying, as they frequently do. upon marks should be able to remember the exact details of the marks upon the goods with which they are in the habit of dealing. Marks are generally remembered rather by general Impression or by some significant detail than by any photographic recollection of the whole. Moreover, variations in details might well be supposed by customers to have been made by the owners of the trade mark they are already acquainted with for reasons of their own (vide Karly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade Names, 9th Edition Paragraph 838).
26. In the above circumstances, the learned Civil Judge rightly concluded that the trade marks used by the defendants is deceptively similar to the trade mark used by the plaintiff and as such the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for grant of ad Interim injunction.
27. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that in case the trade mark of plaintiff was used it suffers business loss, which could be compensated in terms of money and, therefore, ad interim Injunction could not be proper relief. It is true that where the Injury caused to the plaintiff is to be compensated in terms of money, no injunction can be granted but here in the case of use of trade mark of the plaintiff by defendants would cause injury to its goodwill and it would also lose its faith in the mind of public and there is every possibility that spurious goods are supplied under a trade mark used by the plaintiff. Therefore, such type of injury likely to be suffered by the plaintiff cannot be compensated in terms of money. Therefore, in the Instant case ad interim injunction was a proper and efficacious remedy.
28. In view of the facts and circumstances referred to above the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiff.
29. In view of my above discussions and observations I find that both the appeals have no force and are liable to be dismissed.
30. Both the appeals fall and are accordingly dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own costs of these appeals.
31. The trial Court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit at an early date.