( 1 ) BY this order I propose to dispose off IA No. 525/2007 under order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff and IA No. 1632/2007 under order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendant. Counsel for both the parties have addressed their arguments and have relied upon the record and various judicial pronouncements.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff, Canon Inc. , is a Japanese company manufacturing professional and consumer Imaging Equipment and Information Systems. The plaintiff company has filed the instant suit for seeking the relief of a perpetual injunction restraining infringement of trademark Canon and infringement of their copyright in the stylised manner in which the said mark is used, and for passing of, delivery up and rendition of accounts. Plaintiff's contentions:

( 3 ) THE plaintiff company, under the trademark Canon, started its operations around 70 years ago and has, over the years, earned itself the reputation of manufacturing and selling cameras and multimedia machines which are a benchmark in the industry. Plaintiff company has offices in almost all major countries of the world and manufacturing units in America, Germany, france, Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, China. It has been adjudged as one of the 'best Global Brands of the Year' for the year 2005. The turnover of the company for the financial year 2005 was US dollar 21,017 million. The mark Canon, as adopted and used by the plaintiff, is an arbitrary word in relation to its business and is distinctive of the plaintiff. The plaintiff adopted and commenced the use of the trademark Canon in the year 1935. The plaintiff are the registered proprietors of the mark Canon in classes 6 and 20 in India. The mark is registered in over 180 countries and regions world over.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff also has copyright in the unique, stylised, original and artistic manner in which the word Canon, being the trademark of the company, is depicted.

( 5 ) DEFENDANT No. 2, Canon Fasteners, is engaged in the business of selling fasteners, nuts, bolts, screws etc. The Defendant No. 1 is the Manager (Operations) of Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 3 is the owner of the showroom where the products of defendant No. 2 are displayed and sold.

( 6 ) PLAINTIFF's received information, sometime in the month of december 2006, that the products of the defendants are being sold under the mark canon, identical to that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff conducted a trademark search in the registry and found out that the mark, Canonhold was registered in the name of defendant No. 3 in classes 6 and 20. However, a perusal of the defendants product, as filed by plaintiff revealed that not only it was using the plaintiffs registered trade Mark Canon, the symbol of trademark registration, ie, ", appeared next to the infringing user on the packaging. This act of the defendants also constitutes an offense under Section 107 of the trade Marks Act, 1999. The legislative intent is to come down heavily on any such violation, since the penalty has been raised from 6 months, (under the 1958 act) to 3 years under the new Act.

( 7 ) IN its user of the mark Canonhold the words hold appears inconspicuously and insignificantly on top of the mark Canon. The said word hold is descriptive of the defendants products, and has no significance to the mark adopted by the defendant. The entire effort and intention of the defendants is to ride upon the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's famous and well- known mark Canon. This is clear evidence of the defendants dishonesty and mala- fide and constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's trademark. Since the defendants are seeking to ride on the goodwill of the plaintiff, that is sufficient reason to reject any defence being set up by the defendants. The suit is for infringement as well as passing off, and in an action for passing of, registration of the mark in question by the defendant is not a defence. Deception and confusion are relevant