In cases of trademark infringement and passing off, the court may grant a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using a deceptively similar mark and may award damages and costs to the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Bansal, J.

CS(COMM) 254/2022 & I.A. 7239/2023 (O-VIII R-10 of CPC)

1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trademarks and copyrights of the plaintiffs, passing off their goods as that of the plaintiffs and other ancillary reliefs.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The case set up by the plaintiffs in the plaint is that the plaintiff no. 1, The Boeing Company, incorporated under the laws of Delaware, USA, is a leading aerospace company and the largest manufacturer of commercial jetliners, family of airplanes such as 737, 747, 767, 777, 787, boeing business jet range as well as military aircrafts. The plaintiff no. 1 also provides cost competitive service solutions and financial solutions for its customers. The plaintiff no. 1 operates its business in India through various subsidiaries and the plaintiff no. 2.

3. The plaintiff no. 1 is the third-largest defence contractor in the world and provides products and support services to its customers in 150 countries. The plaintiff no. 1 is one of the largest exporters in the United States. The annual worldwide sales turnover along with the Indian turnover of the plaintiffs, for the past five years, is provided in paragraph 20 of the plaint. The annual Indian turnover of the plaintiffs in the year 2021 was Rs. 1171 crores.

4. The plaintiff no. 1 owns a wholly dedicated domain name, www.boeing.com, created on 2nd September, 1986. Further, it also operates its India centric website at www.boeing.co.in to cater to the needs of its Indian market and consumers. The plaintiff no. 1's presence in India dates back to 1941, when Tata Airlines began flying two DC-2 airliners. The plaintiff no. 1 has been a strong partner of India's aviation sector for more than 75 years. Multiple Indian airlines such as Air India, Vistara and SpiceJet operates plaintiff no. 1's aircrafts.

5. The trademark ‘Boeing’ has been derived from the name of the founder of the plaintiff no. 1 company, Mr. William Boeing, in the year 1916. The said trademark and the logo IMAGE has been used by the plaintiff no. 1 in India since 1997. The trademark ‘Boeing’ has no common parlance in Indian context and is therefore, distinctive of its services and business. The plaintiff no. 1 is the sole owner and registered proprietor of the trademark/logo IMAGEworldwide including India. The registration details of the aforesaid trademark/logo are given in paragraph 15 of the plaint. The plaintiff also holds copyright registration in respect of the aforesaid trademark/logo in China.

6. Due to long and continuous use, the said trademark/logo has acquired vast goodwill and reputation on a global footing and are exclusively associated with the plaintiffs.

7. During the periodical market survey conducted by the plaintiffs in June 2021, the plaintiffs found about the infringing activities of the defendants no. 1, 2 and 3. The defendant no. 3 is the proprietor of the defendant no. 1, Advance Technologies. The defendant no. 2 is the sister concern of the defendant no. 1 and is providing similar services as that of the defendant no. 1.

8. The defendant no. 1 is engaged in the business of providing engineering services and solutions in aerospace, defence, automotive, healthcare and energy. The defendant no. 1 is using the mark IMAGE(hereinafter ‘impugned mark’). The official website of the defendant no. 1, www.advance-technologies.net, also displays the aforesaid mark. The defendant no. 1 is also listed on online trade directories such as www.indiamart.com and www.tradeindia.com and various social networking websites. The impugned mark is also displayed at the entrance of the premises of the defendant no. 1 in Bangalore.

9. Pursuant to an investigation conducted by the defendants, it also came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs that the defendant no. 3 is impersonating himself to be an employee of the plaintiffs. This shows that the defendants were aware of the rights of the plaintiff