JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiffs have filed the instant suit seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants for infringement of registered trademark and passing off.

2. The plaintiff no. 1 is the registered proprietor of the trade mark “AMUL”. The plaintiff no. 1 obtained registration in the year 1958. The trade mark registration obtained by the plaintiff no. 1 have been renewed from time to time and till date the validity is subsisting. The plaintiffs have received multiple awards over the years for their work. The plaintiffs endeavour is not merely commercial but also to provide consumers with the highest level of satisfaction and quality. During the financial year 20182019, the plaintiff has procured on an average 33.34 lakhs kilogram milk per day from more than 1,785 milk societies, aggregating more than 121.69 crore kilogram of milk for the entire financial year.

3. The trade mark “AMUL” is a brand known across India and across globe. The brand symbolizes a very Indian brand that has become a household name across the length and breadth cutting across class lines. The trade mark “AMUL”, irrespective of goods it is applied upon, is the sole repository and identifier of the plaintiff and its member. The trade mark “AMUL” symbolizes a movement among Indian Rural Community towards prosperity and Indian public perceives the trade mark “AMUL” having association of connection with the plaintiffs and no other. It is a combination of all the forgoing factors that had culminated into the trade mark “AMUL” being recognized as well known trade mark and, therefore, deserves a broader scope of protection against unauthorized use on none competing goods or services.

4. None appears for the defendants. Written statement has not been filed, despite publication of notice of the instant case on 20.06.2022 and 22.06.2022 in the English daily newspaper “The Statesman” and in Bengali daily news paper “Bartaman”. The Counsel for the plaintiff prays that the present suit may be decreed by invoking provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He further submits that there are sufficient documents on record and also the fact the plaint is supported by an affidavit of the plaintiff, thus, it is not necessary to lead evidence. The fact leading to filing of the present case are that the plaintiff sometimes in the month of February 2020 came to know that candles under the mark “AMUL” are being offered on a complementary basis with purchase of cake at a famous cake shop at Kolkata. The plaintiffs through its local representatives have obtained sample from the said cake shops and find that the defendant no. 1 had not only usurped the well known trade mark of the plaintiff no. 1 but also adopted a similar writing style as that of the plaintiffs registered trade mark.

5. The plaintiff subsequently locates the defendant’s shop and had obtained larger pack of candles bearing the mark “AMUL” along with the name of the defendant no. 2. The pack contained around 30 small packs of candles. As the plaintiffs were unaware of the association between the defendant and accordingly the plaintiffs called upon the defendants to provide details with respect to their association. The plaintiffs were also unaware of the exact constitution of the defendants except what was available on the infringing packets as obtained by the plaintiffs.

6. The defendants are not entitled to use the mark “AMUL” or any other mark deceptively similar thereto as that of the plaintiffs. The trade mark of the plaintiff no. 1 i.e. “AMUL” has assumed a secondary meaning and as such the trade mark “AMUL” is solely and exclusively identified with the goods and services of the plaintiffs. The said trade mark cannot be utilized by any person or entity other than the plaintiffs and also cannot be used in relation to any goods in service other than those of by the plaintiffs.

7. The