DALVEER BHANDARI, J.

( 1 ). The plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant praying that the defendant be restrained from using the trade mark ROYAL TOUCH/royal or any other Trade Mark as may beidentical with or deceptively similar with ROYAL:

( 2 ). It is averred in the plaint that since 1961, the plaintiff has been carrying on well established business as manufacturers and merchants of brassieres and panties. The plaintiff has been: using the Trade Mark royal for the purposes of marketing their product in the market. The aforesaid Trade Mark royal of the plaintiff is registered under no. 325263 as dated 20thmay, 1977. The aforesaid Trade Mark was advertised in the Trade Marks Journal no. 730 dated 1st November, 1979 at page 941.

( 3 ). The plaintiff got its Trade Mark royal renewed from time to time and the same still remains valid on the records of the Trade Marks Registry. Therefore, the plaintiff has got an exclusive right to use the said Trade Mark.

( 4 ). The Trade Mark of the plaintiff has acquired good reputation in Delhi, particularly in the Sadar Bazar and adjoining Commercial areas of Delhi. The products of the plaintiff under the Trade Mark royal connotes and denotes the goods and merchandise of the plaintiff and none else. The Trade Mark has acquired unique reputation in the minds of purchasing public at large and trade, so much so, that people have come to identify, recognise and associate the Trade Mark royal with the plaintiffs goods. It is averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs sales run in several lakhs of rupees.

( 5 ). Defendant M/s V. K. Bajaj and Co. is also engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of brassieres and Panties and other cognate and allied goods, which are meant for the same purpose under identical and deceptively similar Trade Mark royal TOUCH/royal

( 6 ). It is submitted by the plaintiff that the use of Trade Mark royal TOUCH/ ROYAL by the defendant is bound to cause suspicion/deception amongst the purchasing public and trade, which will undoubtedly be misled into thinking that defendant s goods bearing the Trade Mark royal TOUCH/royal also originate from plaintiffs source and goods and business of the defendant is connected with the plaintiff in one Or the other manner and the defendant must be a sister concern.

( 7 ). The adoption and use of Trade Mark royal TOUCH/royal by the defendant in respect of brassieres, panties and other cognate and allied goods is mala fide and fraudulent, actuated solely with a view to earn easy and illegal profits for itself, encashing upon the vast reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff by deceiving the purchasing public and trade into thinking that the defendant s goods and business are same as that of the plaintiff.

( 8 ). It is averred in the plaint that the cause of action of the present suit arose in the month of February, 1992 when the plaintiff came to know about the illegal trade activities of the defendant. The plaintiff filed this suit on 27th May, 1992 before this court. The suit was registered by this court on 15th July, 1992. The defendant appeared and sought time to file the written statement and reply to the interim application. The defendant alongwith the written statement has also filed counter-claim under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6a of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC Amendment Act, 1976 ).

( 9 ). In the written statement, the averments incorporated in the plaint have been denied. It is mentioned that the Trade Mark advertised in Journal no. 730 dated 1st November, 1979 on page 941 does not belong to Vijay Foam and Co. The said advertisement shows that applicant proprietors to be "lakshmi Dass, Satpal and Raghubir Chander trading as Vijay Foam and Co. ". Since the filing of the application on 28th May, 1977, Lakshmi Dass has died and the said firm stands dissolved. The trade mark in question could not belong to a dissolved firm nor could the suit be filed by such afirm. It

Click Here to Read the rest of this document