The court established the plaintiff's exclusive rights to the trademark JOCKEY, the infringement by the defendant, and the well-known status of the trademark.

G.S. Sistani, J.

1. Present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for infringement of trademark, passing off, dilution, tarnishment, unfair competition, damages and rendition of accounts. Summons were issued in the suit on 01.02.2012. On an application for appointment of Local Commissioner moved by the plaintiffs, two Local Commissioners were appointed in the matter. Summons were issued to defendant no. 6 on several dates and was finally served through publication. Despite service none appeared for defendant no. 6, consequently defendant no. 6 was proceeded ex parte on 20.03.2014.

2. On 06.05.2014, plaintiffs and defendants no. 4, 5 and 7 filed application under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC for recording of settlement. The suit was decreed against the defendants no. 4, 5 and 7 on 06.05.2014.

3. Learned counsel for defendants no.1 to 3 submits that plaintiff and defendants no.1 to 3 have arrived at an amicable settlement and pray that the present suit may be decreed. Counsel further submits that in terms of the settlement defendants no.1 to 3 will pay Rs.1.5 lakhs to the plaintiffs within two months from today.

4. Accordingly, suit stands decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendants no.1 to 3 in terms of the settlement.

5. Counsel for the plaintiffs prays for a decree against defendant no.6.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaint is duly supported by the affidavit of plaintiff and, thus, the same should be read as an affidavit by way of evidence. Counsel further submits that documents have also been filed.

7. The plaint is duly supported by the affidavit of Mr. Mark S. Jaeger, Authorised Signatory of plaintiff no.1. He has averred in the plaint that plaintiff No. 1, Jockey International Inc., is a company organized, registered and existing under the laws of Wisconsin, USA and is located at 2300 60th Street, P.O. Box 1417, Kenosha, Wisconsin 53141, USA. Plaintiff No. 2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its offices at Abbaiah Reddy Industrial Area, Jockey Campus, 6/2 & 6/4, Hongasandra, Begur Hobli, Bangalore – 560068.

8. It has further been averred in the plaint that Plaintiff is one of the world’s leading manufacturer, retailer and distributor of hosiery and underwear. The Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, Coopers Inc. was established way back in the year 1876 by Mr. Samuel T. Cooper for manufacturing hosiery items such as socks. In the year 1900, the Plaintiff started manufacturing undergarments, while it started manufacturing the world – renowned JOCKEY products in the year 1934. In the year 1972, Cooper Inc. changed its name to Jockey International Inc. It has also been averred in the plaint that today the Plaintiff is a global corporation active in more than 120 countries, marketing underwear, socks, thermals, sleepwear, activewear, sportswear, lounge wear, men’s, women’s and children’s ranges. He has further averred in the plaint that plaintiff No. 2 is the exclusive licensee of Plaintiff No.1 for manufacture and distribution of the JOCKEY brand Innerwear/ Leisurewear for Men and Women in India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal and UAE.

9. In the plaint it has also been averred that the subject matter of the present suit is the Plaintiff’s trademark JOCKEY which has been extensively used by the Plaintiff either by itself or through its exclusive licensees, such as Plaintiff No. 2, for various hosiery items including undergarments, both for men and women in India and around the world. It has further been averred that the trademark JOCKEY was adopted by the Plaintiff way back in the year 1934 for its goods such as briefs. The Plaintiff adopted the trademark JOCKEY for its briefs since the JOCKEY briefs provided support which was only available in jockstraps. The trademark JOCKEY is arbitrary for the goods to which it is applied and is distinctive of the Plaintiffs’ products.

10. Mr. Mark has further averred in the plaint that since its adoption in the year 1934, th