S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J

1. The plaintiff, in this suit, seeks the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant alleging infringement, passing off and unfair competition in respect of its trade mark, “KNOCK OUT”. Other consequential reliefs are also claimed.

2. The suit avers that the plaintiff is proprietor of the brand, KNOCK OUT for beer by virtue of an assignment deed dated 27.05.2005 executed in its favour by MBL Investments Ltd, (which was later amalgamated with the plaintiff). It is stated that the said brand has been in existence for over two decades and enjoys large and established reputation both in the domestic, as well as international markets. The plaintiff, inter alia, is engaged in the business of brewing, distilling and marketing beer under various trademarks (Haywards 2000, Haywards 5000, Royal Challenge and Knockout). The brand KNOCK OUT has been in existence and continuous use since 1986 (by the plaintiff's predecessor in interest). The registered trademarks of the plaintiff are:

Trade Mark Class Regn. No. Date Goods

KNOCK OUT HIGH

PUNCH WITH LOGO 32 450938 11.03.1986 Beer

KNOCK OUT LABEL 32 450939 11.03.1986 Beer

The said trademark-registrations are subsisting and valid.

3. Further, it is stated that the KNOCK OUT beer is India's leading brand selling over 7 million cases, with Karnataka being the biggest market, followed by Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra. The plaintiff has produced sales for the said brand for the years 1999 to 2004, as under:

YEAR Lac Cases

1999-2000 40.92

2000-2001 40.93

2001-2002 40.58

2002-2003 51.27

2003-2004 59.77

4. The plaintiff further alludes to having spent huge sums in popularizing and advertising its brand, KNOCK OUT. The plaintiff has organised events like cine awards and horse races, engaged brand ambassadors and also come out with a collection of stories of successful men and women in a book titled “Knock Out Challenges” under the said brand. Advertising campaigns included one with the Indian Cricket Team with the tag line “KNOCK 'EM' OUT” and other with tag line “JEENE KA STRONG ANDAAZ-KNOCK OUT CHALLENGE”. The plaintiff states that the entire brand image is about manhood and strength. The advertising expenditure for two years is given as below:

YEAR EXPENDITURE

2004-2005 51,61,955

2005-2006 89,24, 247

It is stated that by virtue of extensive sales promotion and brand building exercise and resultant huge sales turnover, the trademark, KNOCK OUT is exclusively associated with the plaintiff.

5. It is alleged that the defendant is manufacturing a self defence pepper spray under the trademark “KNOCK OUT”, using the plaintiff's brand in entirety. The domain name of defendant's website, i.e. www.knockoutspray.com also amounts to violation of the plaintiff's rights. A “cease and desist” notice dated 22.09.2005 was served to the defendant, which was duly received (reference to the A/D card). It is stated that no response was received to the said notice, therefore a second letter dated 25.11.2005 was sent, which too was received, in response to which the defendant stated that it had already replied to the first “cease and desist” notice by its response dated 28.09.2005 (a copy was enclosed) and further expressed its unwillingness to comply with the plaintiff's requests.

6. The plaintiff alleges that the actions of the defendant are with an intention to take unfair advantage of the goodwill and reputation enjoyed by its (the plaintiff's) trademark “KNOCK OUT”. The defendant's advertising campaign with the tag line-?if your daughter gets raped tomorrow, then who is to blame, you or her?, is developed as a weapon against men, which, according to the plaintiff, is in stark contrast to its advertising campaign which associates its alcoholic beverage with manliness and manhood. It is alleged that the said campaign has caused immense injury to the plaintiff's brand. The said campaign was withdrawn, following a controversy, which wa