Unauthorized use of trademarks for deceptive purposes constitutes trademark infringement and passing off.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

1. In the present suit plaintiffs pray for the following reliefs:

(i). An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners or proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants and agents from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in services of any description baring the trademarks of the Plaintiffs collectively known as TATA house marks and/or any mark/s /logo/trade name deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks, amounting to infringing of the registered trade marks of the Plaintiffs including but not limited to registration No. 838432 in class 16, No. 1247045 in Class 35, No. 1247046 in Class 36, No. 1632278 in Class 37, No. 1247048 in Class 38, No. 1247049 in Class 39, No. 1247050 in Class 40, No. 1247051 in Class 41 and No. 1247052 in Class 42;

(ii). An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners or proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants and agents from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in services of any description bearing the trademarks of the Plaintiffs collective known as the TATA house marks and/or any mark/s/logo/trade name deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ trademarks, amounting to passing off of the Defendants’ services/goods as that of the plaintiffs;

(iii). An order in the nature of directions to the proforma Defendants namely Defendant Nos. 7,8,9,10 and 11 to freeze the bak accounts of the Defendants including that of the Defendant Nos. 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 where monies of the various candidates making applications for employment with the Plaintiffs have been deposited across various branches all over India.

(iv). An order also in the nature of directions to the proforma Defendants namely Defendant Nos. 7,8,9,10 and 11 to disclose the details of the transactions and other information pertaining to the accounts of the Defendants including those of Defendant Nos. 1,2,3,4,5 and 6.

(v). An order for delivery up of all the goods including but not limited to the stationery/letter heads bearing the impugned marks/logos, dies, blocks, cartons, labels, and any other infringing material to the authorized representatives of the Plaintiffs for the purposes of destruction;

(vi). An order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the Defendants on account of the use of the Plaintiffs’ marks and/or any mark/s/logo deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ various trade marks collectively known as TATA house marks and a decree for the amount so found be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs;

(vii). An order for damages in the sum of Rs.20,05,000/- in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants on account of the unauthorized use of the impugned marks of the Plaintiffs collectively known as TATA house marks/ name TATA and a decree for the said amount be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs;

(viii). An order for costs of the proceedings.

2. Summons in the suit were issued to the defendants vide order dated 26th February, 2010 and an interim order was also granted in favour of the plaintiffs, restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 from offering their services by using the trademark TATA or any other trademark which is deceptively similar to the trademark of the plaintiffs. It was also directed that defendant No. 7 to 11 shall freeze the operation of the accounts of defendant Nos. 1 to 6. Defendant No. 8 was served on 1st July, 2010, defendant Nos. 2, 5, 7, 9 and 10 were served on 31st May, 2010 and counsel on behalf of defendant No. 11 appeared on 4th June, 2010. However, since no written statement was filed on behalf of the aforesaid defendants, their right to file written statement was closed vide order dated 6th September, 2010. Defendant No. 4 and 5 were served by means of publication in “The Statesman” dated 9th January,