The court emphasized the importance of prior and extensive use of trademarks, substantial investment in promoting the marks, and the potential for confusion in determining trademark infringement and passing off.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J. - Preface: -

1. These are two interlocutory applications filed on behalf of the plaintiff and the defendant. The interlocutory application filed on behalf of the plaintiff is I.A. No. 4762/2020. This application is preferred under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [in short "CPC"] Upon an ex-parte ad interim injunction being granted in favour of the plaintiff on 24.06.2020, the defendant, moved his application i.e. I.A. No. 6664/2020 under the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC for the vacation of the interim order dated 24.06.2020.

2. A perusal of the record, which includes the pleadings and the documents, would show that the instant litigation has erupted between the plaintiff and the defendant [hereafter collectively referred to as "parties"] in the backdrop of the following facts and circumstances.

Background facts: -

3. The instant suit has been filed against the defendant for issuance of a decree of permanent injunction against him and to restrain him from infringing the plaintiff's trademarks and/or passing off his goods as if they originate from the plaintiff. The other reliefs such as a decree for: declaration; delivery of goods bearing the impugned mark; rendition of accounts; and damages have also been claimed against the defendant.

4. The plaintiff avers that it is a part of the "AHUJA GROUP" which has been carrying on the business of manufacturing, dealing in, and selling audio equipment and instruments as also apparatus for transmission and/or reproduction of sound and images, since 1940.

4.1. The plaintiff also avers that it secured rights in the mark STUDIOMASTER under the assignment deed dated 27.05.2008 executed in its favour by its sister concern M/s Prosound Products. It is claimed that the said assignment deed is, presently, on the record of the trademark registry.

4.2. The plaintiff claims that M/s Prosound Products, which was exclusively engaged in manufacturing audio equipment, under the mark STUDIOMASTER for exporting it to a United Kingdom [UK] based entity ran into trouble once the said entity did not honour its commitments. Left with a huge stock of goods, and with the added burden of saving the jobs of the employees, the plaintiff claims that it made efforts to take the business forward and establish sales of audio equipment, under the brand STUDIOMASTER, albeit, in the domestic market i.e. in India.

4.3. According to the plaintiff, it applied for registration of the device mark in India on 07.06.1999; which, eventually, was granted in due course. Besides this, the plaintiff claims to have acquired trademark registrations for the following formative marks in Class 9.

4.4. It may be relevant to note that insofar as the device mark is concerned, as indicated in the tabular chart above, the trademark registry has entered a disclaimer to the following effect.

"Registration of this Trade Mark shall give no right to the exclusive use of the WORD PROFESSIONAL."

4.5. This apart, the plaintiff also takes the stand that the trademark STUDIOMASTER is registered with the Indian Customs under Customs (Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement) Rules 2017. It is further claimed by the plaintiff that it has not only obtained copyright registration of its device mark STUDIOMASTER PROFESSIONAL in China but has also had the said device mark lodged with the Custom Authorities in China.

4.6. The plaintiff has emphasized the fact that it has expended substantial sums of money to promote the sale of its goods i.e. audio equipment and ancillary products under its device marks. A reference to the sales figures and the professional expenses incurred by the plaintiff spanning between 2007- 2008 have been set out in the plaint. A perusal of the figures concerning turnover shows that the sales revenue is said to have increased from Rs. 48,02,01,022/- in 2007-2008 to Rs. 131,97,01,805/- in 2018-2019. Furthermore, commensurate with th