The central legal point established in the judgment is the infringement of trade mark and copyrights, leading to confusion and revenue loss, warranting permanent injunction, damages, and delivery of infringing materials.

( 1 ) THIS suit for permanent injunction, damages and delivering up, etc. has been instituted by the plaintiff Company alleging that the plaintiff Company is organized and existing under the laws of State of delaware, USA and is having its registered officer at New York. It is a subsidiary of Time Warner Incorporation, which is a leading Magazine publisher in world. Its publications include the News Magazine time as well as time asia . These magazines have acquired worldwide trade reputation and goodwill and are known for fair reporting, good writing and authoritative and unbiased analysis of events and issues. The plaintiff Company is the registered proprietor of the trade mark TIME in about 150 countries and its front page design with distinctive red border is recognized all over world. In para 7 of the plaint, details of its annual average paid circulation have been given. To cater to the specific needs and requirements of a world fragmented into continents and regions, the plaintiff has launched various international editions including time ASIA which was introduced in July, 1946 for the residents of asia. The details of the average paid circulation of TIME ASIA have been given in para 14 of the plaint. The details of the registration in India of the trade mark "time" and its cover design with red border device have been given in para 16 of the plaint. It has been pleaded that these registrations confer upon the plaintiffs exclusive right to use the said mark to the exclusion of all other. LIVING MEDIA is its distributor in India since 1994. The details of the circulation of this Magazine in India, its revenue and publicity expenses are given in para 17 of the plaint.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff has alleged that the defendants started printing, publishing and distributing for sale "time ASIA SANSKARAN" by using the words "now in Hindi also a News Magazine of International standards". This press release indicating the launch of the Magazine from 18th July, 1999 uses the word "time" in an identical type script and font style as is used by the plaintiff to represent the mark on its Magazines. The defendants invited advertisement also for its TIME ASIA SANSKARAN. The search carried out by the plaintiffs distributors revealed that the Magazine titled TIME ASIA SANSKARAN has been registered with the Registrar of Newspapers in India and the first issue of the Magazine dated August, 1999 has been released by the defendants in Hindi. According to the plaintiff, a mere look at the defendants Magazine discloses infringement of its trade mark TIME/time ASIA and slavish limitation of the distinctive red border. To mislead the general public and readers, the defendants have also claimed on their magazine that they are having an office in New York, usa but the investigations carried out by the plaintiff have revealed that this address is false and has been adopted merely with a view to mislead the consumers in believing that the defendants have an operative office in New york. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants fully knowing the plaintiff s right in the trade mark TIME and the worldwide goodwill and reputation therein have sought to misappropriate the plaintiffs trade mark by using the words TIME ASIA . In para 25 of the plaint, it is alleged that the confusion created by the defendants was reaffirmed when the plaintiff s office at Hong kong received by facsimile a bill for advertising in the defendants Magazine. It shows that the advertisers and clients desirous of placing advertisements in plaintiff s Magazine are actually getting confused into believing that the defendants Magazine is in some way connected with the palintiff s and, as such, the revenue loss to the plaintiff stands established. The plaintiff with a view to amicably settle the dispute, addressed a legal notice dated 23. 7. 1999 to defendant No. 1 and thereafter in spite of telephonic discussions, the defendant no. 1 has not responded.

( 3