For trademark infringement, the mark used by the defendant must be identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff. Delay in filing the suit and concealing facts may disentitle the plaintiff for discretionary relief.

I.A. 15312 of 2015 (by plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC)

1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing its trademark, corporate name, copyright, passing off and has also claimed damages etc.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that it is the registered owner of the trademark MEX which it is using for electric switchgears, switches, ignition switches, electric capacitators, electric meters, starting devices for electric motors etc and various other electrical goods. The Plaintiff is also using the trade mark MEX on CFL bulbs, kitkats, fuses, wires and cables and many other cognate and allied goods and the said mark is being used by its predecessor since the year 1960 continuously, extensively and exclusively.

3. It has been stated by the plaintiff that the word MEX is an integral part of the corporate name of the plaintiff which was incorporated in the year 1979. The registered trademark is owned by the plaintiff company M/s Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. on its incorporation and the word MEX is also used in the corporate name of the company. The said trademark is registered under Classes 7, 9 and Class 11 for various goods. Besides this, the plaintiff is also the owner of various registered trademarks wherein the word MEX has been used and thus plaintiff is the owner of the word MEX which is distinctive and identified exclusively with the goods of the plaintiff. The plaintiff produces high quality of products and enjoys the enviable reputation and the public associates the trademark MEX with the plaintiff and none else. Any goods bearing the trademark MEX or a similar trademark causes an impression that the same belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had good market and it has also shown in para 12 of its plaint, the sale figures for the various years and it has also given the details of the expenses spend on the advertisement of its product in para 13 of the plaint.

4. It is submitted that the products of the plaintiff are tested and approved by various Government Departments. The plaintiff had also filed several oppositions from time to time whenever any deceptively similar trademark was advertised and has also won those proceedings. It had opposed an application for registration of trademark MAX in Class 9 in respect of similar goods.

5. The plaintiff had preferred a similar suit against one Mr. Gopal Krishan who was using the trademark MAX Standard as well as the corporate name MAX STANDARD SWITCHCGEARS PVT. LTD. in which an injunction was granted in its favour restraining the defendant from using the trademark MAX (TNR 14). However, later the suit was compromised and permanent injunction order was passed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had also filed one case against one M/s Max Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. before this Court and in that case also an order was passed in favour of the plaintiff whereby the defendants were restrained from using the trademark MAX.

6. It is further submitted that the defendant no. 1 i.e. M/s Omex Cables Industries has adopted the trade name with the word “OMEX” which is identical to that of plaintiff’s trade mark MEX. The defendant no. 2 is the authorised dealer of the defendant no. 1. The trademark OMEX GOLD was advertised in Trade Marks Journal No. 1338-1 under Application No. 1251498 and the plaintiff has filed its opposition and the same is pending under No.DEL-228156.

7. The case of the plaintiff is that the use of the expression OMEX either as a trade mark or a trade name by the defendant no. 1 is bound to cause confusion and deception amongst the purchasing public and the public would be misled into thinking that the defendant’s goods bearing the word OMEX originated from the plaintiff. It is submitted that it is identical/deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff i.e. MEX. It is also submitted that the defendant’s trade mark OMEX is visually, phon