The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiff to exclusive use of trademarks and copyrights, and the court's authority to grant injunctive relief and punitive damages in cases of trademark and copyright infringement.

Vipin Sanghi, J. Oral:

1. None has appeared for the defendant Nos. 1 to 2 despite passover. Accordingly, they are proceeded ex-parte. Defendant No. 3 was proceeded ex-parte on 07.02.2012. Defendant No. 4 already stands deleted from the array of defendants on 07.02.2012.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff who has taken me to the record and made his submissions. I now proceed to dispose of the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Shri Sunil S. Jaifalkar is the constituted attorney of the plaintiff who has instituted the suit. The Power of Attorney dated 27.01.2003 executed in his favour is Ex.PW1/1.

4. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of paint, varnishes, enamels and other like products for the last more than 50 years. The plaintiff claims that it is the market leader in its field and has substantial share in the market. The products of the plaintiff are available at every nook and corner of the country. The plaintiff states that it is also exporting its products to various other countries. The products of the plaintiff are marketed under distinctive brand names in containers and packaging bearing a distinctive trade dress and get up in which the plaintiff claims copyright. The plaintiff claims that it is the owner of all the trademarks and copyrights used by it in respect of its goods. The plaintiff states that in the year 1954, the company’s mascot i.e. the mischievous imp. Gattu, was born. The company’s mascot Gattu appears as a lovable, mischievous little boy with the lopsided grin. The plaint discloses that the said mascot was originally created in 1954 by India’s top cartoonist, R.K. Laxman. The business of the plaintiff company kept growing from time to time, and in the year 1967, the plaintiff emerged as the number one company in India in its field. The plaintiff narrates in para 6 the various overseas ventures started by it in 1977, and thereafter.

5. The plaintiff further states that it obtained registration of its trademarks as follows:

“A) Trademark APCOLITE registered under No.154797 in class 2 as of 16th July,

1952 in respect of paints, varnish etc.

B) Trademark APCOLITE ROYALE and DEVICE registered under number 513502 in

class 2 as of 18th July, 1989

C) Trademark Device of GATTU registered under no.219102 B in class 2 as of 27th

November, 1963.

D) Label of APCOLITE with the device of GATTU registered under No.226466 as of

7th January 1965 in class 2 in respect of Paints, varnishes etc.

E) Trade mark APCOLITE registered under no. 211175 in part “A” of the Register as of 10th September 1962 in class 16 in respect of Artist’s brushes, paint brushes, painters brushes, stationery brushes for gliders F) Trademark ASIAN PAINTS UTSAV registered under no 579838 in class 2 as of 26th August, 1992 G) Trademark TRACTOR with device of GATTU and TRACTOR registered under no. 533698 in class 2 as of 20th July, 1990. H) Trademark TRACTOR (DEVICE) registered under no. 142226 in class 2 as of 2nd February, 1950 in respect of paints, varnish of all kinds, distempers and all other goods included in class 2. I) Trademark TRACTOR with device of GATTU and TRACTOR registered under no. 523718 in class 2 as of 1st February, 1990.”

6. The aforesaid registrations of the trademarks have been renewed from time to time and are still subsisting in the Register of Trademark. The plaintiff has led in evidence all the registration certificates of the marks claimed by it as Ex.PW 1/2 collectively. The originals of these documents were produced, seen and returned.

7. The plaintiff states that by virtue of the registration of its trade marks, the plaintiff is entitled to exclusive use of the same. The plaintiff also states that it is using the trade mark “APEX” which is pending registration in favour of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff also claims copyright in respect of the following artistic works used by it in its product: A) Pic