The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 29(1) and Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, regarding the infringement of a registered trademark, the similarity of goods, and the likelihood of confusion or association with the registered trademark.

V.K. Jain, J.

1. This is a suit for permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and delivery up of the infringing material.

The plaintiff Company is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of inter alia hair fixers, hair gels, hair shampoos, perfumery, cosmetics, hair lotions, bleach creams preparations, moisturizers etc. It is alleged that the mark SIMCO was coined by the predecessors in interest of the plaintiff and adopted in respect of the goods manufactured by them, in the year 1948. It is alleged that the mark SIMCO is distinctive to the plaintiff to such an extent that the purchasing public and the members of the trade identify and recognize the goods bearing the said mark with the plaintiff Company. The following registrations are held by the plaintiff Company in respect of the said trade mark:-

Trade Mark	Trade Mark No.	Class
SIMCO	198401	3
SIMCO	184033	3
SIMCO	978627	1
SIMCO	978631	5
SIMCO	978634	8
SIMCO	978636	10
SIMCO	978638	12
SIMCO	978641	15
SIMCO	978645	19
SIMCO	978649	23
SIMCO	978650	24
SIMCO	978653	27
SIMCO	978654	28
SIMCO	978655	29
SIMCO	978656	30
SIMCO	978657	31
SIMCO	978658	32
SIMCO	978659	33
SIMCO	978660	34

It is also alleged that use of the mark SIMCO and any other mark deceptively similar thereto in respect of goods of any kind is bound to create confusion and deception in the minds of purchasers and members of the trade.

2. The defendants were engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning; polishing, souring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions and other cognate and allied goods. Defendant No.1 is stated to be the proprietorship concern of defendant No.2. It is alleged that the defendants have adopted the mark SIMCO of the plaintiff in respect of the same or similar goods, which is dishonest and mala fide. The intention of the defendants in using the mark of the plaintiff is to encash upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s trade mark, which the said mark enjoys in the market, by giving impression as if their goods originate from the plaintiff or are in some manner connected with it. In October, 2007, the attention of the plaintiff was drawn to the publication of an application for registration of the trade mark SIMCO in class 3, in favour of the defendants, in respect of bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, souring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions and other goods mentioned for sale in southern states. The plaintiff opposed the aforesaid application and at the time of filing this suit, the proceedings in this regard were stated to be pending. The plaintiff has sought an injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark SIMCO and/or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the said mark in respect of bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, souring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions and other goods covered by plaintiff registrations or any goods of same or similar description. They have also sought an injunction against manufacture, sale, offering for sale dealing in bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, souring and abrasive preparations; soaps; perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions and/or any other cognate or allied goods under the impugned mark SIMCO or any other mark deceptively similar thereto.

3. The defendants were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 24.04.2009. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of its Managing Director Mr. Kuldeep Singh by way o