The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademark rights under Section 29(5) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, based on the Plaintiff's prior adoption and registration of the mark.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff in 2005 seeking permanent injunction against infringement of trademark, as also reliefs for passing off, damages, etc. in respect of its trademark 'CELERON', against Defendant No.1 - Mr. Rakesh Jain, Director of Defendant No.2, Defendant No.2 - Celeron Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Defendant No.3 - B M Electrovision.

3. In this matter, summons was issued vide order dated 1st December, 2005 and issues were framed thereafter. Once the leading of evidence commenced, the Plaintiff's witness PW-1 first appeared on 21st January, 2008. He was then partly cross-examined on 15th July, 2008 and since then, despite repeated opportunities, the Defendants had not further cross-examined the Plaintiffs and had not filed their evidence. Therefore, vide order dated 2nd December, 2013, their opportunity to lead evidence was closed. This matter has since been listed in the category of 'Finals Matters' and none has appeared for the Defendants on the last two dates in 2018 and in March, 2022. Vide previous order dated 9th March, 2022, intimation was also issued to ld. counsel for the Defendants. However, none appears for the Defendants even today. accordingly, the Court has proceeded further.

4. The Plaintiff is a company engaged worldwide in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling a variety of computing, communications and Internet-related software and services. The Plaintiff's customers are stated to include individual consumers, businesses, schools, businesses, industrial manufacturers, government, military, etc. The Plaintiff introduced the world's first microprocessor in 1971 and in 1998, it is stated to have adopted the mark CELERON for a new range of microprocessors for personal computers, etc. The word is stated to be a coined word, having no dictionary meaning. The Plaintiff is also stated to have popularized the said mark by way of extensive publicity in the 1990s. The said mark is also a registered trademark in classes 9 and 16, registered in the year 1998, as also in various other countries in the world. The said registration is stated to be valid and subsisting, and has been renewed till 2028.

5. The case of the Plaintiff is that around august, 2004, they became aware that the Defendants had commenced the use of the name Celeron Electronics Pvt. Ltd. trading in wire wound resistors, used as components in the computer market. Defendant No.3 was found to be a sister concern and all the Defendants were found to be promoting business/activities under the name CELERON. after some communications sent to the Defendants to stop the use of the said mark were unsuccessful, the present suit was filed seeking permanent injunction.

6. Heard the ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff and perused the record. The Plaintiff has registered the trademark 'CELERON' in various classes and the said registration is still valid. The Plaintiff's mark is also registered in various countries including australia, Canada, Brazil, China, Denmark, Italy, Korea, UaE, USa, UK, etc. The Plaintiff has also received widespread recognition for its range of microprocessors including 'CELERON', in various magazines in India and abroad being Business Week, asiaweek, etc.

7. a perusal of the documents placed on record by the Defendants, also shows that Defendant No.2- Company was incorporated by the name Celeron Electronics Private Limited on 20th March, 2002, in Delhi. The main objects clause of its Memorandum of association provides that the company carries on business in India as manufacturers, processors, sellers, dealers, etc. of all kinds of electronics/electrical goods, components, etc. The Defendants have attempted to give some justification as to how they adopted the mark CELERON. The extract of the written statement reads:

'B. The key foundation of the entire case of the plaintiff is of a conception that Celeron - a registered trade ma