The defendants were set ex-parte on 06.01.2014. According to the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff is a registered Proprietor of the Trade Mark PMP round seal which is in use for the last one decade in Class 24 in respect of Textile piece goods and is using the said label with No.144 and a colour combination of red and gold from the year 1974. The said Trade mark has also been registered with the Registrar of Trade Marks on 02.09.1988 in Class 24 under No.497210.
2.The first plaintiff has assigned the said Trade Mark in favour of the second plaintiff by a Deed of Assignment dated 10.10.2007. The second plaintiff who was the partner of the third plaintiff firm under the partner ship deed dated 04.06.2003 had licensed the third plaintiff to use the registered Trade Mark which was assigned to him by the Deed of Assignment dated 10.10.2007. Originally the suit was filed by the first plaintiff. The above second and third plaintiffs were impleaded subsequently on 30.01.2014.
3.Claiming the defendants are attempting to use the labels which are deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark containing the same colour combination of letters and numerals in the same fonts with a very minute difference which are not discernable by the general public, the plaintiffs have come forward with the above suit. The defendants have not contested the suit. The second plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and has also filed a Proof Affidavit. Along with the Proof Affidavit, he had produced the trade mark registration certificate issued to the first plaintiff, the copy right registration certificate dated 07.12.1992 issued to the first plaintiff, the copy of the artistic work of the plaintiffs labels, the Deed of Assignment dated 10.10.2007 executed by the first plaintiff in favour of the second plaintiff, the copy of the label used by the defendants, the partnership deed of the third plaintiff dated 04.06.2003 and the registration certificate of the third plaintiff. The documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P7.
4.From the above documents, it is seen that the plaintiffs have got a registered Trade Mark in respect of the label bearing No.144 with a particular colour combination of Gold and Red. The defendants' label which has been produced as Ex.D5 has the same colour combination and same lay out, but only the number is shown as 744 instead of 144. The fonts of the letters and the numerals in the labels used are same as that of the plaintiffs'. There is a likelihood of the general public who intend to buy the products of the plaintiffs, would receive the products of the defendants as if they are that of the plaintiffs. Since there is a likelihood of deception, the first plaintiff as the owner of the registered Trade Mark, the second plaintiff being the partner of the third plaintiff firm under the partner ship deed dated 04.06.2003 had licensed the third plaintiff to use the registered Trade Mark they are entitled for the relief as prayed for in the suit. The suit is decreed as prayed for as against the defendants 1 to 4.
5.Accordingly, this Civil Suit is decreed as prayed for. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
04.10.2017 Speaking order Index: No Internet: Yes ah/dna R.SUBRAMANIAN., J.
ah To
1.Venkateswara Lungi Company, 98/2, New Street, Mannady, Chennai 600 001.
2.P.R.Textile, 98/2, New Street, Mannady, Chennai 600 001.
C.S.No.1017 of 1995 04.10.2017