The generic nature of certain words, such as 'micro', and the absence of deceptive similarity are crucial in determining trademark infringement.

( 1 ) THE short controversy involved in this suit is whether the trademark `microtel used by the defendant is deceptively similar to the trade mark `micronix of which the plaintiff is the registered proprietor and as such amounts to infringement of its trademark. Second objection is with regard to the identical use of logo. Logo `m is being used by the plaintiff. The defendant is also using the same logo though on the well of the letter M the word `i appears. Third grievance is with regard to the two labels used by the defendant which according to the plaintiff are deceptively similar as according to the plaintiff cartons, labels being used by it are having unique colour scheme, placement which are literary work and therefore use of the identical labels and cartons amounts to infringement of copyright. Fourth grievance is use of the identical name of firm of the plaintiff by the defendant. Plaintiff s firm s name is MICRONIX INDIA whereas defendant has adopted the name MICROTELEMATIX which according to the plaintiff amounts to passing off action.

( 2 ) IN order to show underlying intention of the defendant to encash upon the reputation and goodwill of the trademark which is being used for electronic items as well as logo on the label and deceptively similar name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has referred to the following background which is like this:-

( 3 ) BOTH the parties entered into a partnership business under the name and style of M/s MICRONIX INDIA in 1977. However, they pulled on well for more than 14-15 years but parted their ways sometime on 14. 2. 1992 by way of compromise. By virtue of the said compromise, the defendant retired from the partnership business and upon dissolution of the firm, all the assets, liabilities, goodwill, running business, Trade name, Trade mark etc were taken over by the continuing partners. A sum of Rs. 1 lakh and some machineries came to the share of the defendant. The plaintiff firm, when defendant was one of its partners, got the trademark MICRONIX registered in respect of electrical, electronics apparatus and instruments, T. V. tuners, T. V. Boosters etc. on 19. 11. 1986. However, after the retirement of defendant from partnership in 1992, other two continuing partners became subsequent proprietors of trade mark, logo and label.

( 4 ) THAT due to adoption of deceptively similar trademark and cartons by the defendant in respect of same business, goods being sold at the same time, a great confusion has arisen in the market as most of the business of the plaintiff is now being diverted to the defendant which is causing irreparable loss and injury in terms of plaintiff s name and reputation. Hence this suit.

( 5 ) AT the outset, it is pertinent to mention that by way of ad interim injunction defendant was restrained from adopting the trademark MICROTEL, Logo M and the label in respect of electronic items vide order dated 15. 9. 1993 passed by learned Single Judge. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant approached the Division Bench but failed to reverse the decision. Feeling dissatisfied, the defendant approached the Supreme Court and succeeded in vacating the injunction. While vacating the injunction and allowing the appeal of the defendant, the Supreme Court made it clear that observations made in the order were only for deciding whether defendant should be restrained from using the trademark, logo and cartons at interim stage and the High Court will not be precluded from coming to a different conclusion at the final hearing on perusing the entire evidence before it.

( 6 ) WHILE vacating the stay, the Supreme Court observed that micro-chip technology being the basis of many of the electronic products, the word "micro" has much relevance in describing the products and therefore no one can claim monopoly over the use of the said word. Anyone producing any product with the use of micro chip technology would be justified in using the said word as a prefix to his trade name and