The court affirmed that the plaintiff's registered trademark "STREAX" is distinctive and has acquired goodwill, while the defendants' mark "STREAK" is deceptively similar, justifying an injunction against its use.

ORDER

1. In these proceedings, the applicant / plaintiff is asserting its proprietary rights in the registered trademark “STREAX.” The plaintiff uses the said registered trademark in connection with its products pertaining to cosmetics, hair care preparations, hair dyes, hair colours, hair oil, hair lotions, shampoos, skin care products, sanitary preparations etc. The plaintiff claims that the defendants have infringed upon its registered trademark by using the mark . The plaintiff also claims that the defendants are indulging in passing off their products as those of the plaintiff by using the aforesaid impugned trademark.

2. The plaintiff claims that the leading and essential feature of the impugned mark i.e. the word “STREAK” is identical / deceptively similar to the registered trademark “STREAX.” Since the defendant No.1 partnership firm, of which defendant No.2 is a partner, is also in the business of hair care products, including hair extensions and curly hair extensions, according to the plaintiff, there is every likelihood of confusion in the minds of the consumers. This not only dilutes the registered trademark of the plaintiff, but it also adversely affects the huge amount of goodwill earned by the plaintiff over a period of time.

3. As per pleadings placed on record, the plaintiff originally was a proprietorship firm, which started business in or about the year 1950. Later, it was converted into a partnership firm. The constitution of the partnership firm underwent changes over a period of time. Subsequently, the partnership firm was converted into a joint stock company and on 10^th June, 2008, it was incorporated as a company limited by shares under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, known as Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited. According to the plaintiff, over a period of 70 years spent in research and innovation, has led to huge presence of the products of the plaintiff in the premium beauty products segment. The plaintiff has five production locations in Mumbai, Himachal Pradesh and Guwahati.

4. The pleadings on record show that the trademark “STREAX” was conceived and adopted by the predecessor of the plaintiff on or about 01^st April, 2002, and on 01^st July, 2002, an application was filed for registration of the said trademark in class 3, pertaining to cosmetics and other goods. Registration was granted by the Trade Marks Registry. In paragraph No.7 of the plaint, the plaintiff has given details of its applications for registration of trademarks in various classes, which show that the plaintiff has registration for its trademark “STREAX”, as also few label marks in various classes totaling to 44 such registrations. Copies of the relevant certificates are also placed on record with the plaint. Reference is made to applications for registration for some variants of the mark “STREAX” such as “STREAX PRO”, “STREAX PROFESSIONAL” etc. It is specifically brought to the notice of this Court that the plaintiff also has registrations in various international jurisdictions and further that the District Court of Central Jakarta, Indonesia, has even held the plaintiff’s mark “STREAX” as a well-known trademark. Translated copy of the said order is placed on record with the plaint.

5. The plaintiff has stated that its products bearing the said registered trademark “STREAX” are available on various e-commerce websites such as Amazon, Nykaa, Flipkart etc. and that its products are popular throughout India and also in some foreign countries where the same are exported.

6. The details of the annual sales turnover from the year 2004-05 to the year 2023-24 are given with supporting certificates issued by Chartered Accountants. The annual sales turnover figure for goods bearing the mark “STREAX” pertaining to the year 2023-24 is stated to be about Rs.501 Crores. The advertising and publicity figures for the year 2023-24 are stated to be about Rs.50 Crores. The plaintiff has also placed on record details as to the manner in