The court upheld the exclusive ownership of registered trademarks and granted a permanent injunction to prevent infringement and passing off of goods.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. The plaintiff alleges, by the present suit, infringement, by the defendant, of the plaintiff's registered trademarks "Su-Kam", "BIG Conqueror Tubular Battery" and "BIG Warrior Tubular Battery", specifically the marks registered under Registration Nos. 821727, 2213106 and 22103109. Consequently, it is alleged, the defendant is seeking to pass off its goods as those of the plaintiff. A tabular statement of the registrations held by the plaintiff is contained in para 16 of the plaint and may be reproduced thus:

2. The plaint asserts that the mark SU-KAM is owned by the plaintiff and is in use by the plaintiff at least since 1998. The plaint further asserts that the plaintiff company had initially been placed in liquidation on 3rd April 2019 by an order passed by learned National Company Law Tribunal (the learned NCLT), which order stood upheld by the learned National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (the learned NCLAT) on 29th April 2019. Following this, on 31st May 2022, the learned official liquidator issued a certificate of sale of the plaintiff company as a going concern to the Navraj Mittal Consortium which, therefore, is now the rightful and exclusive owner of the plaintiff company and all its assets including the brand name "Su- Kam".

3. By order dater 30th October 2019 in CS(COMM) 1155/2018, this Court recognised the exclusive ownership of the plaintiff over the "Su-Kam" trademarks. The plaintiff asserts proprietorial rights over the aforesaid trademarks in various classes, though the present suit is restricted to its proprietorial rights in Class 9.

4. The plaint further asserts that the plaintiff has been using the "Su-Kam" trademarks, for inverters, since 1998. The word mark "Su- Kam" is stated to from a dominant part of the cooperate name of the plaintiff company. It is also asserted that the "Su-Kam" trademark of the plaintiff is an invented and coined mark which, therefore, is entitled to a higher degree of protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

5. Prima facie, the submission of the plaintiff that the mark "Su- Kam" constitutes a dominant feature of the plaintiffs registered trademarks merits acceptance.

6. The plaint further asserts that the world mark "Su-Kam" has been used by the predecessors of the plaintiff in one form or another since 1986. The plaint further draws attention to the various other achievements of the plaintiff, including encomiums and certificates of excellence that it has been issued over a period of time. The plaint also refers to the expenses incurred by the plaintiff towards advertising and promotional activities as well as the revenue generated by the plaintiff from its operations over the years which, even as on 31st March 2018, prior to the proceedings before the NCLAT, was over Rs. 500 Crores.

7. In these circumstances, the plaint asserts that the "Su-Kam" trademarks has attained tremendous goodwill and reputation and forms a source identifier for the plaintiff. They are indelibly associated in the minds of the public with the plaintiff's goods.

8. The plaintiff also asserts the marks [IMG] and [IMG] which are also registered in favour of the plaintiff since September 2011 in Class 9 for inverters and batteries.

9. In the circumstances, the plaintiff has exclusive proprietorial rights in respect of the aforenoted registered trademarks, particularly in their use in inverters and bat