The exclusive rights of a trademark holder, along with copyright registration, can justify the grant of a permanent injunction and withdrawal of trademark applications in cases of infringement.

JUDGMENT

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

2. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction against the Defendants' use of the mark 'PRAKASH'/trade dress/copyright/colour combination/writing style/formative marks, for PVC pipes and other related goods, as also reliefs for passing off, delivery up, rendition of accounts and further damages.

3. The case of the Plaintiff is that it adopted the mark 'PRAKASH' and its corresponding logos in the 1980s and the said mark has come to be associated with high quality PVC products such as PVC pipes, PVC water storage tanks, PVC tubes and fittings, PVC House Pipe Hi - Density Poly Ethylene (HDPE) Pipes, etc., as set out in paragraph 2 of the plaint. The logos of the Plaintiff are set out below:

4. The Plaintiff also has registered trademarks being 'PRAKASH', 'PRAKASH GOLD' and other variants, including the logos, in Classes 9, 17, 20 and 35. The Plaintiff also has pending applications in respect of 'PRAKASH' and its derivative marks. The details of the Plaintiff's registered trademarks are as under:

5. The copyright for one of the artistic works is also registered vide Registration No. A-55155/98. One copyright application for the round logo, is stated to be pending. The sales of the Plaintiff for the year 2018-19 of the PVC products are more than Rs.4,000 crores annually by the two entities, namely, Prakash Industries Limited and Prakash Pipes Limited.

6. In October, 2021, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants, M/s Bauchhaar Poly Industries - Defendant No.1, and Sh. Tarun Agarwal - Defendant No.2, had commenced using the mark 'PRAKASH', 'PRAKASH PREMIUM' and 'PRAKAS' in a similar logo style for their PVC products, including for PVC pipes, in a similar trade dress/colour combination/writing style/label/get up. Upon further inquiries, the Plaintiff also learnt that Defendant No.1 had applied for the trademark registration of the mark 'PRAKASH PREMIUM' by Application bearing No. 4903662 in Class 17 for 'unprocessed and semi-processed rubber, guttapercha, gum, asbestos, mica and substitutes for all these materials, plastics and resins in extruded form for use in manufacture, packing, stopping and insulating materials, flexible pipes, tubes and hoses, not of metal', on a 'Proposed to be Used' basis. According to the Plaintiff, Defendant No.2 had also applied for trademark registration for three marks consisting of the mark 'PRAKASH', details of which are set out as under:

7. As per the Plaintiff's inquiries, Defendant No.2 is a brother of the promoter of the Defendant No.1 and hence it was a clear deliberate action on their part to use the mark 'PRAKASH' and encash upon the goodwill of the Plaintiff. This Court, vide order dated 29th October, 2021 had injuncted the Defendants in the following terms:

5. The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case. An interim order is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants, their partners, etc. from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising their products or operating a website or any social media accounts under the trademarks

PRAKAS/SUBPRAKASH/PPLPRAKASH or any other mark that is identical or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's trademark as listed above till further orders.

8. Thereafter, as recorded in the order dated 6th January, 2022, the Defendants had entered appearance and submitted that they have already stopped using the mark 'PRAKASH' and 'PRAKASH GOLD', etc. The Defendants also submitted that they were inclined to settle the matter amicably. Accordingly, the matter was referred to mediation.

9. However, the mediation did not prove to be fruitful and the matter has been listed today. The Plaintiff