JUDGMENT (Oral)

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

IA 20396/2023 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC)

1.  Summons, in this suit, as also notice in the present application, were issued on 13 October 2023. Notice in the present application was made returnable on 1 November 2023.

2.  Ms. Karuna Nundy learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, points out that notice stands served on all the defendants and speed post tracking reports have also been placed on record. The Registry also reports that notice separately stands served by the registry on Defendant 3.

3.  Despite this matter having been called out twice today, there is no appearance on behalf of any of the defendants. Nor has any of the defendants condescended to place on record any response to the present application.

4.  I have, therefore, heard Ms. Karuna Nundy for the plaintiff and proceed to dispose of the present application.

5.  The plaintiffs seek, by means of the present application, interlocutory injunction, pending disposal of the suit, restraining the Defendant 3 from using the mark , Defendant 4 from using the marks Shrinath Tourist Agency, Shrinath Nandu Travels, and and Defendant 5 from using the mark .

6.  The plaintiffs are the proprietor of the following trade marks, registered under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Trademark Registration/ Trademark No. and date User details ClassDescription of goods/services Status569684

18.03.1992 01.01.1978 16Printed matters, visiting cards, boards, stationery and other printed literature. Registered1312997

05.10.200401.12.1978 39Travel arrangements included in Class 39 Registered 2373270

01.08.201201.04.2006 39Travel and tour operation, transports and travel arrangement Registered4193168

31.05.201901.04.2006 39Travel and tour operation, transports and travel arrangement RegisteredSHRINATH 4706612

17.10.202001.04.2006 39Travel and tour operation, transports and travel arrangement Registered

7.  The plaintiffs are engaged in the business of providing tour and travel services. The sales turnover, from the said services, has been provided from the years 2016-2017 till 2022-2023. For the year 2021- 2022 to itself, the plaintiffs claimed to have earned Rs. 51,81,18,002/- from providing tour and travel services under the aforenoted marks. Plaintiff 2 has also been awarded various awards, about saving the excellence of the services that it provides. The plaint also points out that ex parte ad interim injunction had been granted to the plaintiffs, protecting its marks from infringement, by this Court, in CS (Comm) 340/2022[Shrinath Travel Agency v. Mr. Harsh Kumar] and CS (Comm) 45/2023[Shrinath Travel Agency v. Maventech Labs]. The SHRINATH word mark was adopted by the plaintiffs in 1978 and has, since then, be used to continuously on a pan-India basis.

8.  The plaintiffs are aggrieved by use, by the defendants, of logos which, according to the plaintiffs, are deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade marks as well as, at least in the case of two of the defendants, i.e., Defendants 3 and 4, also deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered word mark SHRINATH. The logos of the defendants are being used for identical services which, according to Ms. Karuna Nundy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, is bound to result in confusion in the market.

9.  Apropos the logo of Defendant 5, Ms. Nundy submits that, though Defendant 5 does not use the word SRINATH as part of its logo, the motif of a bus, with the underling below the mark and the words "Travel & Transport Agency" below the line, as well as the use of a colour combination of red and blue which is similar to the colour combination used by the plaintiffs, is likely to confuse customer at least into believing an association between the defendants and the plaintiffs within the meaning of Section 29(2)(b)[(2) A registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being a registered proprietor or a person using by way of permitted use, uses in the course of trade, a mark which beca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document