Important Point: When the language of the statute is plain and clear then the literal rule of interpretation has to be applied and there is ordinarily no scope for consideration of equity, public interest or seeking the intention of the legislature.

A.S. OKA, J.

OVERVIEW AND THE QUESTIONS TO BE DECIDED

1. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 26th April, 2016 expressed a view that a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raymond Limited Vs. Raymond Phamaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (44) PTC 25 (Bom.) needs reconsideration. Paragraph 21 of this order reads thus :-

“21. I am, of course, bound by the decision in the Raymond. However, in my respectful submissions, and for the reasons I have outlined above, that decision in Raymond requires reconsideration; specifically on the following questions:

(1) Where a party is found to be using a registered trade mark as a 'name', viz., as a corporate or trading name or style, though in respect of goods dissimilar to the ones for which the trade mark is registered, is the proprietor of the registered trade mark entitled to an injunction on a cause of action in infringement under Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

(2) Whether the use of a registered trade mark as corporate name or trading name or style is excluded from the purview of Sections 29(1), 29(2) and 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and whether those Sections are restricted to the use of a trade mark 'as a trade mark', i.e., in the 'trade marky' sense?

(3) Whether Sections 29(4) and 29(5) operate in separate and mutually exclusive spheres, i.e., whether, if the defendant uses the registered trade mark only as a corporate name or trading name or style in respect of dissimilar goods, a Plaintiff can have no remedy and is not entitled to an injunction?

(4) Whether the view taken by the Division Bench in Raymond Ltd Vs. Raymond Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd (2010(44) PTC 25 (Bom) (DB)) is a correct view?”

2. On the basis of this order, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice directed that the matter be placed before a Full Bench. The issue involved in this Reference is of interpretation of the various subsections of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (for short “The Trade Marks Act”) and in particular Sub-Sections (1), (2), (4) and (5).

3. Suit No. 1906 of 2012 was filed by way of an action in trade mark infringement combined with cause of action in passing off. The dispute is about the mark “CIPLA” registered to the Plaintiff in Class 05 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade Mark Rules, 2002. The Plaintiff is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products. It is claimed that the Plaintiff has been using the mark CIPLA for a long time. It is contended that it is also a part of its corporate name and in fact it is an abbreviation of its earlier corporate name. The mark has been used by the Plaintiff only for pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations. The Defendants have not used the said mark for such preparations. It is alleged that the Defendants have used the mark as a part of their corporate or trade name. They are using it in a slightly different form in respect of household articles, such as soap dishes, photo frames, ladders and so on. The Defendants claim to possess a registration of a very similar mark CIPLA PLAST in their favour in Class 21 of the Fourth Schedule to the Trade Mark Rules, 2002.

4. For the sake of completion, we must reproduce Class 05 and Class 21 which read thus :-

“5. Pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations, dietetic substances adapted for medical use, food for babies; plasters, materials for dressings, materials and stopping teeth, dental wax; disinfectants; preparation for destroying vermin; fungicides, herbicides.”

“21. Household and kitchen utensils and containers (not of precious metal or coated therewith); combs and sponges; brushes (except paints brushes); brush making materials; articles for cleaning purposes; steelwool, unworked or semiworked glass (except glass used in building); glassware, porcelain and earthenware not included in other classes.”

5. The learned Single Judge referred to the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Raymond Limited and quoted paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 thereof which read thus :-

“12. R