In trademark law, the likelihood of confusion rather than actual confusion is sufficient to grant injunctive relief, especially when the Plaintiff has established prior use and goodwill.

ORDER

R.I. Chagla, J. - By this Interim Application, the Applicant / Plaintiff is seeking an order of injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing the Plaintiffs LW and LW+ registered trademarks and for which necessary relief has been sought viz. for injunction restraining infringement of trademark, copyright and passing off of the Plaintiff's registered Trade Marks by the impugned marks of the Defendant viz. LW with or without the marks HYDROBUILD or HYDROTITE and / or Power and the impugned labels referred to in the Plaint as impugned marks / labels.

2. The Plaintiff is stated to be a world-renowned company, carrying on business in the field of waterproofing chemicals, construction bonding chemicals / materials / additives products amongst other products including construction and paint chemicals, adhesives, sealants, automotive chemicals, art materials, industrial adhesives, industrial and textile resins and organic pigments and preparations since at least 1969. The mark DR. FIXIT is stated to have been honestly and independently conceived and adopted by the Plaintiff's in the year 2001, and has been continuously, extensively and in an uninterrupted manner used since then.

3. The Plaintiff further states that one of the oldest products of the Plaintiff within the DR. FIXIT range of products is sold under the marks LW and LW+. The Plaintiff had commenced the use of the mark LW in or about the year 1990. Further, in or about the year 2001, the house mark DR. FIXIT was introduced by the Plaintiff as an umbrella brand for all its waterproofing and bonding products. The Plaintiff states that the LW mark continued to be used as a product identification mark within the range of products. In or about the year 2009 an improved variant of the said product was launched as LW+, also under the same sub-range of products. The marks LW/LW + are arbitrary / invented marks for use upon and in relation to the Plaintiff's products. The Plaintiff claims to be first to adopt and use the same as a trademark.

4. The Plaintiff has relied upon its earliest trade mark application, under no. 705497 dated 2nd May, 1996 in class 1, made by the Plaintiff in the year 1996, comprising of the mark LW as a leading and essential feature thereof which claims use since April 1993. The application came to be abandoned on technical grounds, however, the factum of adoption and use of the Plaintiff's mark LW in or about the 1990 is sufficiently demonstrated through the said application.

5. The Plaintiff in paragraph 14 of the Plaint has provided an indicative list of the Plaintiff's various trademark registrations in respect of the marks LW/LW+ which are reproduced as under:-

6. The Plaintiff states that the mark LW (word per se) is the leading and essential feature of all the said registrations of the Plaintiff. The registrations are valid and subsisting and the entries appearing on the register of trade marks including the dates of use thus constitute prima facie evidence of such facts.

7. The Plaintiff has stated that in respect of an earlier label, bearing No. 714144, there was a condition namely 'Registration of this Trade Mark shall give no right to the exclusive use of the LETTER A, LW, INTEGRAL CEMENT WATERPROOFING COMPOUNDS'. The Plaintiff states that though it has not relied on the said registration for the purpose of the present suit,