The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff had the exclusive right to use the trademark Fedders, and the defendants were found to be infringing that trademark. The court granted an injunction to protect the plaintiff's exclusive right to the trademark.

JUDGMENT :

Madan B. Lokur, J.

The plaintiff is a Corporation incorporated in the United States of America. It claims to carry on an old established business of manufacturing and/or trading in a wide range of air-conditioners, split air-conditioners, de-humidifiers, air-conditioning machinery, etc. It says that its products are manufactured and sold under the trademark Fedders, which is extremely popular in the United States of America and also in other countries of the world.

2. On 21st May, 1956 the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff, Fedders-Quigan Corporation entered into an agreement with Lloyd Electric and Engineering Company (LEECO) described as a co-partnership consisting of Pandit Kanhaiya Lal Punj and Suraj Prakash.

3. In terms of the agreement, the plaintiff agreed to grant to LEECO the sole and exclusive right and license for a period of five years from 30th June, 1956 to assemble, manufacture and sell room air-conditioners manufactured by or incorporating parts manufactured or sold by the plaintiff under its trade name and label.

4. One of the clauses of the agreement stipulated quite clearly that the parties understand and agree that the trade name and label Fedders is the exclusive property of the plaintiff and upon termination or cancellation of the agreement for any reason whatsoever, LEECO shall forthwith discontinue use of the trade name or label Fedders. It was also made clear that the plaintiff shall have the right to seek, apply for and obtain by an independent application in any court of competent jurisdiction a mandatory injunction to enforce the provisions of the relevant paragraph of the agreement. This clause reads as follows:

THIRTEENTH: In connection with the performance of this agreement by Lloyd, but not otherwise, Fedders granted permission to Lloyd to use the trade name and label Fedders as hereinbefore provided. The parties understand and agree that the aforesaid trade name and label Fedders is and shall at all times be and remain the exclusive property of Fedders. Upon the termination or cancellation of this agreement for any reason whatsoever (and in addition to the provisions concerning the termination of the use of the Fedders name as hereinabove provided in paragraph TWELFTH of this agreement), Lloyd shall forthwith discontinue the use of the trade name or label Fedders in connection with any merchandise manufactured, produced, assembled or sold by it. In addition to but not in limitation of any other rights and remedies to which Fedders may be entitled by the terms of this agreement or otherwise, and despite any provision for arbitration hereinafter contained, Fedders shall have the right to seek, apply for and obtain by independent application in any court of competent jurisdiction a mandatory injunction to enforce the provisions of this paragraph THIRTEENTH of this agreement.

5. Apparently in view of the license granted to LEECO, but despite the agreement dated 21st May, 1956, LEECO applied on 18th July, 1956 for registration of the trademark Fedders. On 19th February, 1958 the trademark Fedders was registered by the Trade Marks Registration Authority in favor of LEECO under No. 175253. This appears to have taken effect from the date of the application made by LEECO, that is, 18th July, 1956. While the application was pending consideration with the Trade Marks Registration Authority, Fedders Lloyd Corporation, Defendant No. 18 was incorporated on 16th January, 1957 to take over the business of LEECO, as would appear from the narration of facts in Fedders Lloyd Corporation Ltd. v. Fedders Corporation, 2005 (30) PTC 353. Soon thereafter, on 11th February, 1957 LEECO issued a no-objection in favor of Defendant No. 18 to the effect that that Defendant may manufacture and market air-conditioners, refrigerators, air-conditioning machinery, components, etc. under their proposed trademark Fedders Lloyd since it was different from the trademark Fedders of LEECO.

6. It appears that when the plaint