The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks, the likelihood of confusion or deception arising from the similarity of marks, and the prima facie case of infringement and passing off based on extensive usage and registration of the trademark 'STANDARD'.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J.

I.A.12276/2021 (early hearing)

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

I.A.578/2020 (O-XXXIX R-1 &2), I.A.2481/2020 (O-XXXIX R-4)

2. By way of the present judgment, I propose to decide the application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for grant of interim injunction pending the disposal of the suit and the application filed on behalf of the defendant under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC seeking vacation of the ex parte ad interim injunction granted on 17th January, 2020, in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendant from infringing/passing off, inter alia, the trademark, copyright, logo, trade dress of the plaintiff and other ancillary reliefs. In the suit, it has been pleaded that:

(i) Plaintiff's company and its predecessors have been using the trademark/logo `STANDARD' in relation to electrical products, including switch gears, fuse gears, cables, insulation wires, miniature circuit breakers since the year 1958.

(ii) Plaintiff has obtained a number of trademark registrations in its favour for the mark `STANDARD' in India as well as foreign jurisdictions, such as Kuwait, Africa, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, etc.

(iii) Due to extensive and long usage, the trademark/trade name `STANDARD' has gained immense popularity and reputation in relation to the electrical products among the plaintiff's consumers and the general public. In support of this, the plaintiff has given its gross annual turnover as well as the amount spent on advertising and sales promotion for the years 2018-19.

(iv) Plaintiff's trademark `STANDARD' has been declared a well-known mark under Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by this Court in the order dated 8th March, 2016 in CS(OS) 2966/2015. (v) Plaintiff's trademark, brand name and trading style `STANDARD' has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning.

(vi) Defendant has dishonestly adopted the impugned marks and and has also copied the mark `STANDARD' and has replaced the letter `D' occurring at the end of the word STANDARD with the letter `O' to form the impugned trademark `SS STANDARO'.

(vii) It is alleged that the defendant has not only copied the trademark of plaintiff but also copied the font thereof and has adopted the device of the triangle in the impugned trademark in which the letter `S' is contained, so as to look deceptively similar to the logo of the plaintiff.

(viii) In June, 2019, the plaintiff came across the defendant's impugned mark, which was published in the trademark journal in February, 2019 and filed an opposition against the same.

(ix) In August, 2019, counter-statement with respect to the defendant's trademark application was filed by the defendant.

(x) Pursuant to an investigation conducted on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff came to know that defendant has not only copied trademarks but has also copied the packaging and other elements of the trade dress of the plaintiff's products to deceive the consumers into believing that the impugned products are those of the plaintiff.

(xi) Defendant is using the impugned trademarks in relation to electrical goods such as MCB, switch gears, etc., which are identical to the goods being sold by the plaintiff.

(xii) In view of the fact that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor and prior adopter of the trademark `STANDARD', it is entitled to protect its registered trademark as also its goodwill and reputation.

4. The suit came up for hearing before the Court on 17th January, 2020, when, finding a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, this Court was pleased to pass an ex parte ad interim injunction order restraining the defendant from using the trademark `STANDARD'/`SS STANDARO' or the logo/device of and , or any other logo/device, trade dress deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks.

5. The defendant in his wr