The registration of a trademark confers exclusive rights to the owner, and mere registration under the Copyright Act does not authorize the use of a trademark if it is found to be identical or similar to a registered trademark.

MANMOHAN, J.

1. The present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, rendition of accounts, etc. The prayer clause in the suit is reproduced hereinbelow :-

"32. The Plaintiff prays :-

(i) For an order for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their proprietor/partners/directors, as the case may be, principal officers, servants, retailers, stockiest, distributors, representatives and agents from manufacturing itself, permitting others to manufacture on its behalf, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in clothing, footwear, headgear or any other allied and cognate goods under the impugned trade mark PETER ENGLAND or any other trade mark which incorporates or contains the registered trade mark PETER ENGLAND of the plaintiff or any other trade mark/marks which are deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said registered trade mark PETER ENGLAND amounting to infringement of the registered trade mark PETER ENGLAND of the plaintiff registered under No.665416 in class-25.

(ii) For an order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the defendants by manufacturing and selling their products containing and/or incorporating the impugned infringing trade mark PETER ENGLAND.

(iii) For an order for delivery for purposes of destruction of all impugned cartons, boxes, wrappers, dies, labels, advertising material, blister packs, footwear, etc. and any other infringing copies or media used by the defendants in pursuit of their illegal activities.

(iv) For costs in the proceedings."

2. Vide order dated 17th June, 2013, the learned predecessor of this Court had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. The relevant portion of the ex-parte injunction order is reproduced hereinbelow :-

"After having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and going through the plaint and the accompanying documents, I am of the view that the plaintiff has been able to make out a case for grant of interim injunction. I am also of the view that if the interim injunction is not granted ex parte the very purpose of granting this relief would be defeated.

So, issue notice of this application also to the defendants for 5th September, 2013 and it is further ordered that till further orders the defendants are restrained from selling/marketing its products by using the mark/name 'PETER ENGLAND'."

3. The ad-interim order was confirmed on 28th July, 2016 till the disposal of the suit.

4. The relevant facts of the present case are that the plaintiff is the flagship company of the Aditya Birla Group of Companies and is the registered proprietor of the trademark “PETER ENGLAND” under registration No.665416 in class-25, in respect of clothing, footwear and headgear in India since 1997, as also in several other countries of the world.

5. It is averred in the plaint that the trademark “PETER ENGLAND” was originally conceived and adopted more than a century ago, i.e., in the year 1889, by the plaintiff’s predecessor, Carrington Viyella Garments Limited (CVGL), England. It is asserted that the said company underwent a series of corporate adjustments and changes during the course of time. It is stated that the 'PETER ENGLAND' trademark was assigned by an assignment deed dated 21st January, 2000 in favour of the plaintiff (then known as Indian Rayon & Industries Limited). It is further averred that subsequently, the plaintiff’s name was changed to Aditya Birla Nuvo Limited and an application for recording the change in name was filed with the office of the Registrar of Trade Marks on 24th November, 2006. It is stated that the plaintiff had also applied for the registration of the trademark “PETER ENGLAND” in respect of other classes, which are pending. The plaintiff has further averred in the plaint that apart from the trademark “PETER ENGLAND”, the plaintiff is also the proprietor of several other trademarks, which inco