IMPORTANT POINT
Trademark infringement occurs when a mark is deceptively similar to a registered trademark, causing confusion among consumers.

JUDGMENT :

Mini Pushkarna, J.

1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair competition, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up.

2. The plaintiff is aggrieved on account of the defendant’s unauthorised adoption and use of the mark EASTPOWER/ , on the ground that the same infringes upon the trademark of the plaintiff “EASTMAN”/ , being deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s prior adopted trademark used in relation to identical goods i.e. batteries.

3. Case as canvassed on behalf of the plaintiff, is as under:

3.1 The plaintiff company is a part of the renowned “Eastman Group” and is one of the leading battery manufacturers in India, having its annual turnover of approximately Rupees Two Thousand Four Hundred Crores. The plaintiff is the leader in supplying high-quality industrial products particularly the car, truck, two-wheeler and inverter batteries.

3.2 The plaintiff has honestly and in a bona fide manner conceived and adopted an inherently distinctive wordmark EASTMAN in the year 1982 with the formation of the Eastman Industries Limited (EIL) and obtained registration for the trademark EATSMAN in the year 2007 under Class 99 and device mark in the year 2017 under Class 9.

3.3 The wordmark EASTMAN and / , device mark stands registered in plaintiff’s name in India and several other jurisdictions.

3.4 The plaintiff’s marks have been used continuously and extensively by the plaintiff so much so that the existing customers, general public, retailers, distributors and relevant members of the trade identify and associate the products under the plaintiff’s mark exclusively with the plaintiff.

3.5 Defendant is one Mr. Amritpal Singh, the purported proprietor of the defendant and appears to be engaged in the business of selling batteries including non-standardized infringed products with the name and style of “EASTPOWER”, at least since September 2023, as per the information available with the plaintiff.

3.6 The plaintiff, in November/December 2023, came across defendant’s products which were being offered for sale with a vendor. The non-standardized products therein contained the impugned mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s prior, distinctive and well-known trademark.

3.7 The defendant has committed infringement with a mala fide intent to misrepresent the customers of the plaintiff and sell deceptive and infringed products in the markets, causing irreparable damage to the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff.

3.8 Thus, the present suit has been filed.

4. This court notes that vide order dated 08th January, 2024, an ex parte Advocate Appeared :-interim injunction order was passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, whereby, the defendant was restrained from using plaintiff’s mark EASTMAN, and any other mark which is confusingly similar to plaintiff’s said marks.

5. Vide order dated 01st August, 2024, it was recorded that the ordinary summons of the defendant were reported to have been refused by the defendant on 24th April, 2024. Thus, the defendant was deemed to be served.

6. Further, vide order dated 09th September, 2024, it was recorded that despite being served on 24th April, 2024, the defendant has not filed the written statement. Thus, the right of the defendant to file written statement stood closed.

7. Subsequently, noting that neither the defendant had appeared before this Court despite service, nor any written statement had been filed, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21st November, 2024.

8. It is to be noted that the plaintiff adopted its mark in the year 1982, and is being used extensively by the plaintiff, since then. Further, device mark was adopted, and is being used by the plaintiff, since 2017. The registrations of the plaintiff, as given in the plaint, are as follows:

9. In order to determine whether the impugned trademark adopted by the defendant is