MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J

1. The plaintiffs seek a decree for permanent injunction, alleging infringement and passing-off, of their trademark “KAMADHENU”; they also seek other reliefs, such as damages, direction for delivery-up etc.

2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. Its main business is to manufacture and market Steel Bars and other cognate products. It has also expanded into other businesses such as Cement, POP, construction, etc. It is submitted that the plaintiff has approximately 15,600 shareholders across the country. The plaintiff alleges to be owner of about seven registered trademarks containing KAMADHENU, in respect of steel and various classes or categories of steel; it has produced copies of such trademark certificates, with effect from different dates from 1996, 1999, 2004 and 2005. It also claims ownership of registered trademark in respect of KAMADHENU in other diverse classes, such as Chemicals and industry, cement and construction, paints and varnishes, bleaching preparations, Industrial oils, pharmaceuticals, paper and cardboard, leather Bakelite and laminated products, advertising and media, coffee, tea, beer, alcoholic and other beverages, food products, condiments, etc.

3. The plaintiff contends that KAMADHENU is a world-famous and globally respected trademark, trade name, service mark and brand name. To establish user of the mark KAMDHENU, the plaintiff has produced 24 bills and invoices towards sales of its products, commencing from 1998 till the date of filing the suit. The list of documents filed along with the suit also includes copies of advertisements. The plaintiff, in support of its claim for widespread usage of the mark, has produced copies of its annual reports for various years, including 1996-97 (when the gross sales was ` 27,91,69, 783/-) 1997-98 (when the gross sales was ` 31,64, 48, 836/-) 1999-2000 (when the gross sales was ` 40,01,38, 737/-) 2002-03 (when the gross sales was ` 53,15,74,750/-) 2003-04 (when the gross sales was ` 83,58,13, 250/-) 2004-05 (when the gross sales was ` 1,26, 29,10,373/-) 2005-06 (when the gross sales was ` 1,37,64,78,640/-) and for subsequent years, when it had increased considerably.

4. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant is engaged in the manufacture and export of bedsheets, quilts and pillow covers in various specifications; it is a proprietary concern. It is further claimed that the plaintiff became aware of the defendant’s mark KAMADHENU, in respect of pickles and other such ready-made foods or preservatives upon enquiries. The plaintiff submits to being aggrieved by the defendant’s unauthorized use of the word “KAMADHENU” in which they have excessive rights, which injures their reputation.

5. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant despite being aware of their (i.e the plaintiff’s) fame and reputation in respect of the mark “KAMADHENU” and its use of such mark is in bad faith. The plaintiff claims being the registered proprietor of a well-known mark (falling within the definition under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999)(hereafter called “the Act”).

Since the mark has been used extensively for over a considerable period of time, and is almost a household mark, in respect of steel bars (or sariyas), promoted and advertised, their products widely under the said mark through advertisement media. The claim for being well-known mark is also premised upon numerous registrations subsisting in the plaintiffs’ favor in various classes under the Act. It is submitted that this Court has jurisdiction since the plaintiff office operates in Delhi and its goods are extensively sold here. It is also claimed that the defendant operates and promotes its business activity on a commercial scale, including in Delhi. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs seek injunction, restraining the defendant from manufacturing any articles or commercial-dealing with them under the trade-name KAMADHENU or any other dec