Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
Larsen And Toubro Ltd. (LANDT) - Appellant
Versus
Lachmi Narain Trades And Others - Respondent
CS (OS) No. 1305 of 2003
Decided on : 31-08-2015
Passing Off - Companies Act, 1956 - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 - [LNT] - Perpetual injunction, passing off, rendition of accounts - Sections 18 - The court discussed the plaintiff's claim for perpetual injunction, passing off, rendition of accounts against the defendants. The plaintiff, an existing company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, carried on business as Engineers, Construction Contractors, Manufacturers of switch gears, etc. The plaintiff claimed that the words 'Larsen' and 'Toubro' have acquired distinctiveness and any use by any person or Company of the word 'Larsen' or 'Toubro' or the abbreviation 'L&T' is bound to cause confusion amongst the traders and members of the public. The defendants were using the name/abbreviation 'LNT'/'ELENTE' as a brand name for their electrical goods. The court found that the marks used by the defendants were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks, and the defendants' adoption was tainted and dishonest. The court granted a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the name/words/abbreviation 'LNT/' 'ELENTE' or any other deceptively similar marks/name/ words/abbreviated letters in relation to any of their goods.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, an existing company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, carried on business as Engineers, Construction Contractors, Manufacturers of switch gears, etc. The plaintiff claimed that the words 'Larsen' and 'Toubro' have acquired distinctiveness and any use by any person or Company of the word 'Larsen' or 'Toubro' or the abbreviation 'L&T' is bound to cause confusion amongst the traders and members of the public. The defendants were using the name/abbreviation 'LNT'/'ELENTE' as a brand name for their electrical goods.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the marks used by the defendants were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks, and the defendants' adoption was tainted and dishonest. The court granted a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the name/words/abbreviation 'LNT/' 'ELENTE' or any other deceptively similar marks/name/ words/abbreviated letters in relation to any of their goods.
Issues: The issues framed by the court included whether the plaintiff has trade mark in 'LNT/ELENTE' and use of mark 'LNT/ELENTE' by defendant would cause or is likely to cause confusion in the mind of general public, whether the defendants are trying to pass off their goods as that of plaintiff's by use of Mark 'LNT/ELENTE', whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendant, if so, on what terms and conditions, whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages, whether plaintiff is entitled for rendition of accounts, whether the plaintiff has acquiesced in defendant using brand name LNT, if so, to what effect, and relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the marks used by the defendants were deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks, and the defendants' adoption was tainted and dishonest. The court granted a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the name/words/abbreviation 'LNT/' 'ELENTE' or any other deceptively similar marks/name/ words/abbreviated letters in relation to any of their goods.
Final Decision: The suit of the plaintiff was decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, and a decree for permanent injunction was passed restraining the defendants from using the name/words/abbreviation 'LNT/' 'ELENTE' or any other deceptively similar marks/name/ words/abbreviated letters in relation to any of their goods.
JUDGMENT :
Manmohan Singh, J.
The plaintiff has filed the present suit for perpetual injunction, passing off, rendition of accounts, etc. against the defendants.
2. The brief facts of the case as per plaint are that the plaintiff is an existing company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, carrying on business, inter alia, as Engineers, Construction Contractors, Manufacturers of switch gears, etc. The Memorandum and Articles of Association of the plaintiff have been exhibited as Ex. PW-1/2.
2.1 The plaintiff is the successor in business of a partnership firm formed by two Danish Nationals, Henning Holk-Larsen and Soren Kristian Toubro (hereinafter referred to as "the said partnership firm"). The said partnership firm was established in the year 1938 for the purpose of carrying on business as engineers. As the business grew, the said partners decided to form a Limited Company and that is how the plaintiff was incorporated on 7th February, 1946 which took over the business of the said partnership firm.
2.2 The name of the plaintiff contained the surnames of the said two partners i.e. Larsen and Toubro and the same name was so chosen because the plaintiff was promoted by the said two partners having their aforesaid surnames.
2.3 Since incorporation, the plaintiff has been carrying on business in India and over the years its business activities have spread in other parts of the world. The word "Larsen" and/or the word "Toubro" have been associated by the traders and members of the public exclusively with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also known by its short name viz. "L & T". "L" standing for Larsen and "T" standing for Toubro. The plaintiff's name Larsen and Toubro has acquired distinctiveness in respect of various goods sold and services provided by the plaintiff. The short form "L&T" necessarily brings to the mind of any person the plaintiff's name "Larsen" and "Toubro".
2.4 From time to time, the plaintiff extended its activities and the plaintiff carried on diversified business. Over the years, the plaintiff formed subsidiary Companies whose names are LTM Limited, L&T Finance Limited, Larsen & Toubro Infotech Limited, L&T Inforcity Limited, Larsen and Toubro Celinco (Private) Limited, L&T Transportation Infrastructure Limited, etc. The plaintiff also has associated Companies, the names of which are L&T-Chiyoda Limited, L&T-Niro Limited, L&T-Sargeant & Lundy Limited, L&T- Komatsu Limited, L&T Ramboll Consulting Engineers Limited, L&T- John Deere Limited, L&T-Case Equipment Limited, Larsen & Toubro (Oman) LLC, etc.
2.5 The letters "L&T" or the words "Larsen" and "Toubro" are found in the names of such of the aforesaid Companies because either they are subsidiaries of the plaintiff or they are associate Companies of the plaintiff in which the plaintiff has large stakes and such associate Companies were formed using the letters "L&T" or the words "Larsen" and "Toubro" because those Companies were promoted by the plaintiff for carrying on its diversified businesses not only in India but also abroad.
2.6 The plaintiff's had applied for registering the marks "Larsen and Toubro" and "L&T" which has since been registered under various classes.
2.7 It is claimed by the plaintiff that the words "Larsen" and "Toubro" have acquired such distinctiveness that any use by any person or Company or party of the word "Larsen" or "Toubro" or the abbreviation "L&T" is bound to cause confusion amongst the traders and members of the public. Such use will result in conveying an impression that the person using the word "Larsen" or "Toubro" or the abbreviation "L&T" is an offshoot or an agency or a subsidiary of the plaintiff or in some way connected, related and associated with the plaintiff.
2.8 The turnover and annual profits of the plaintiff company for the years 1991-1992 up to 2001-2002 have been mentioned in the paragraph 6 of the plaint. The plaintiff has been regularly declaring dividends. The plaintiff's shares are widely held and the net worth
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
