I.A. Nos. 7674/2006, 8107/2006 and 6319/2008

S. Ravindra Bhat, J. (Open Court)-The plaintiff in the suit, claims permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using its name and trademark "VARDHAMAN GROUP" and "VARDHAMAN". The plaintiff also seeks other consequential reliefs, such as compensation, decree for accounts, and so on.

2. The plaintiff says that its associate companies are known as the VARDHAMAN GROUP, and are real estate developers, engaged in that business, since 1982; it is submitted that the plaintiff company and its associates are involved in building projects; in the Delhi and NCR region, the group is involved in building projects, including malls, plazas, commercial complexes, etc. According to the averments, the projects are about 250 in number. It is also stated that the trademark registration for the VARDHAMAN GROUP and logo under the Trademarks Act (hereafter "the Act") were applied for by the plaintiff, on 18.9.1998 and 2.7.2000; the marks were registered on 21.4.2005 and 11.1.2005; the plaintiff relies on copies of registration certificates, issued in this regard, by the Trademarks Registry, for the purpose.

3. The plaintiff claims to becoming aware of the defendant company recently, through advertisements issued on the latters behalf, in the print media, and that it was incorporated only recently, in October, 2005, with an authorized capital of Rs.

20 lakh and paid up capital of Rs. 1 lakh. The plaintiff submits that the use of VARDHAMAN, by the defendant, in relation to its business, which is the same as its (the plaintiffs) not only is likely, but actually causes confusion amongst members of the public, leading to their being deceived into believing that the defendant is part of the plaintiffs group. The plaintiff submits that the defendants use of VARDHAMAN, both as its trade or corporate name, as well as for its logo, as a mark, amounts to infringement.

4. The plaintiff speaks of its widespread and well-established reputation, by relying on copies of annual reports of its company, for various years, including 1998-99 to 2004-2005, as well as copies of its brochures and advertisements, issued from time-to-time. It says that its business has grown manifold; its turnover was Rs. 30 crores, when the suit was filed. The plaintiff submits, that its advertising and publicity expenses were to the tune of Rs. 246 lakh; it claims to having selling agents and a sales network spread across several states, and that its networth, as on 31.3.2006, was over Rs. 90 crores.

5. The plaintiff submits that unless an ad interim injunction is granted, it would be put to irreparable prejudice, because its reputation and goodwill would be injured beyond repair, as the defendant would be free to use the trademark, and its corporate name, unimpeded, thus causing confusion among members of the public, since both parties deal in the same services, i.e. building and construction. It is submitted that the plaintiffs right to enforce its statutory remedy for infringement, of its registered trademark, under the Act, is undeniable. The defendants use of the mark is plainly dishonest, since it incorporated only in the year 2005; before that, it carried on business in real estate consultancy and booking properties. It entered into the real estate development business and started using the VARDHAMAN mark, fully aware that the plaintiff is registered proprietor of such trademark, with exclusive rights. It is emphasized that by virtue of Section 29, there is no doubt about the fact that as registered trademark proprietor, the plaintiff should be protected from attempts by other traders and businessmen, trying to ride on its reputation, both in respect of the mark, as well as trade or corporate name.

6. The defendant contends, while resisting the suit, and the applications for injunction, that the plaintiff has withheld and suppressed material facts from the Court, pertaining to a pending suit, CS (OS) 2160/2000, in which, on 10.9