The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of the trademark 'INTEL' as a well-known trademark and the finding that its use by the Defendants constituted infringement and passing off.

JUDGMENT

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

2. The Plaintiff- Intel Corporation, USA had filed the present suit in 2006 against three entities, namely, Intel Gas Gadgets (P) Ltd., Intel Gas Guards (P) Ltd. and Intel Safety Devices, and Mr. S.P. Gupta, director of the said defendants. The suit was for permanent injunction restraining trademark infringement, passing off, damages, delivery up, etc. The grievance of the Plaintiff in the present suit is the use of the mark `INTEL' as part of the trading style, corporate name, and domain name, etc. by the Defendants as also as trademark in respect of the Defendants' products.

3. The Plaintiff, incorporated in 1968, is engaged in the business relating to computers and computer parts, including, semi-conductor devices, memory chips, microprocessors, central processing units, motherboard, etc. The Plaintiff is a multi-national corporation with business operations in more than 40 countries and 199 offices worldwide, at the time of filing of the suit. The Plaintiff had been exporting products to India as far back as 1972 and it formally established its operations in Indian the year 1988 with opening of a branch office in Bangalore. The Plaintiff has also opened up operations in various other cities through its subsidiaries. The Plaintiff is the world's leading developer and manufacturer of microprocessors and other building blocks for computer and internet industry. As per the plaint, the Plaintiff is stated to have introduced the world's first microprocessor in 1971.

4. The Plaintiff is stated to have used the name and mark `INTEL' to market its products and services since its inception in 1968. It is the case of the Plaintiff that its use of the mark `INTEL' has gradually grown and has encompassed other facets of computer industry such as software industry and the internet. The Plaintiff is advertising its services and offering its products through its websites on domain names containing the name and mark `INTEL', www.theintelstore.com and www.shop-intel.com. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, the Plaintiff relies upon various publications to show the goodwill and recognition enjoyed by the mark `INTEL'.

5. In the year 1969, the Plaintiff adopted a distinctive style for representing the mark `INTEL' which is now popularly known as `INTEL dropped e logo'. The same is reproduced as under:

6. In the year 1991, the Plaintiff started `INTEL INSIDE' program which is stated to be one of the world's largest logo licensing and cooperative advertising program. Under the program, computer manufacturers such as IBM, DELL, HEWLETT-PACKARD, HCL, WIPRO, etc., sold personal computers designed with `INTEL' microprocessors and are licnesed to use the Plaintiff's `INTEL INSIDE' logo on their computers, and in their advertising and promotion material.

7. The Plaintiff claims to have an estimated 2000 trademark registrations world-wide consisting of or incorporating the word `INTEL' at the time of filing of the present suit. In India, the mark `INTEL' is registered as a word mark in Classes 9 and 18 under trade mark registration numbers 678000 and 768180. The revenue of the Plaintiff were to the tune of $34 billion in the year 2004. The Plaintiff has also invested a substaintial amount in the advertisement and promotion of of the `INTEL' mark. The promotion expenditure of the Plaintif in the year 2004 was to the tune of $2 billion. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the mark `INTEL' has earned an enormous amount of goodwill and has become a household name in India which is exclusively associated with the Plaintiff by the trade and the public in general.

8. As per the plaint, in the first week of November, 2005 the Plaintiff came across the website of the Defendants under the domain name www.intelgasgadets.com. On further enquiries, it came to the knowledge of the Plaintiff that Defendant No.1 has incorporated various companies containing the name `INTEL', the n