IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of trade mark infringement principles, including the assessment of phonetic, visual, and structural similarity of marks, and the grant of perpetual injunction to prevent confusion and deception.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants praying for the following reliefs:

“a) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, assigns, servants, agents, officers, distributors, representatives or anyone claiming through or under them from in any way or manner passing of and enabling others to pass off their products by using the marks “NAKODA SumEEt, “NAKODA Summit”, “NKDSUMEET”, “MISUMEET”, “NAKODASUMMIT” and/or “NAKODASUMEET” or any other deceptively similar mark as and for the plaintiff’s trade mark “MI SumEEt” in any way or manner whatsoever;

b) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, assigns, servants, agents, officers, distributors, representatives or anyone claiming through or under them from in any way or manner infringing the plaintiff’s copyright over and in respect of his artistic work “MI SumEEt” by use of any work and/or mark shown in Annexure “A” hereto or any other identical and/or deceptively similar work and/or mark;

c) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their men, assigns, servants, agents, officers, distributors, representatives or anyone claiming through or under them from copying and/or imitating and/or pirating registered design of the plaintiff as shown in Annexure “C” hereto by use of article as shown in Annexure “P” hereto;

d) Delivery up on oath any article and/or all labels, dyes, blocks, plates, moulds, screen prints, cylinders, advertising materials, products, name boards, letter heads, stationeries, pamphlets, brochures and any other materials of the defendants bearing the mark “NAKODA SumEEt”, “NAKODA Summit”, “NKDSUMEET”, “MISUMEET”, “NAKODASUMMIT” and/or “NAKODASUMEET” or any other mark that is identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark “MI SumEEt” and the same be cancelled and/or destroyed;

e) Decree for a sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-(Rupees Five Crores) against the defendants jointly and severally for damages suffered by the plaintiff;

f) In the alternative an enquiry be made to ascertain the loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff and a decree be passed for such sum as may be found due upon enquiry against the defendants jointly and severally.”

2. On receipt of writ of summons, the defendant nos. 1 to 3 have entered appearance but inspite of publication of notice in the paper publication, the defendant no. 4 did not entered appearance. After 10th May, 2022, the defendant nos. 1 to 3 have also not appeared and have also not filed written statement, accordingly, by an order dated 29th July, 2022, the case is placed in the list of “Undefended Suit”.

3. The fact of the case in a nutshell is as follows:-

(a) The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and/or marketing of mixer, grinder, juicer, hand blender, electrical accessories, kitchen home appliances, etc and carried on its business from 19, Pratham Industrial Estate, Western Expressway Highway, Vasai (East), Palghar – 401208.

(b) The plaintiff carries on his business through proprietorship firms, namely (i) Manibhadra Industries also known as Manibhadre Industries; (ii) Sumeet Engineering Works; (iii) Shree Sai Marketing; (iv) Pet & Mineral.

(c) The defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 claim themselves to be manufacturer and/or marketer of mixer, juicer, grinder etc., and carries on their businesses from their respective place of business.

(d) The defendant no. 4, is purportedly the distributor of the products of the defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 and carries on its business from 54, Cotton Street, Burra Bazar, Kolkata – 700 007.

(e) The plaintiff had entered into a manufacturing agreement with one Taffy Appliances Private Limited, who manufactures goods for the plaintiff, which the plaintiff markets under his various brands and more particularly “MI SumEEt”, the plaintiff manufactures and markets goods falling within the Classes 7, 9, 11 and 21 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

(f) The plaintiff since the year 1993 has been manufacturing and/or