JUDGMENT

V.K. Jain, J. (Oral)--This is a suit for permanent injunction, rendition of accounts and damages and delivering up of infringing material. The plaintiff is a corporation registered in Japan. Defendant No.1 Mr. Biju is the proprietor of defendant No.2 Benz Auto Spares. The plaintiff claims to be the sixth largest industrial corporation in the world engaged in manufacture and sale of automobiles and auto-parts and is amongst Fortune Global 500 Companies. The plaintiff claims to have coined the trademark TOYOTA which has no meaning in India nor is a dictionary word or a word of any trade or usage. It is alleged that the trademark TOYOTA is being used by the plaintiff in India since 1957 in relation to vehicles, their parts and fittings. It is also alleged that on account of the quality of the products, which are being sold under the name TOYOTA and continuous use of the aforesaid trademark, it has acquired an enviable reputation and goodwill in the market. The trademark TOYOTA is registered in the name of the plaintiff company in the following classes:

2. The plaintiff claims sale of Yen15,501,553,000,000, Yen17,294,760,000,000 and Yen18,551,526,000,000 in the years 2003, 2004 and 2005, respectively. It is alleged that in automobile industry the mark TOYOTA qualifies as a source indicator of one the most reputed and trusted names in car makers and it is a well known mark under Section 11 of Trademarks Act, 1999, entitled to protection across classes of goods since any misuse of the mark is not only likely to cause confusion and deception but would also be contrary to public interest and would dilute the reputation and goodwill which has come to be associated with it for last many years.

3. Defendants No.1 to 3 are dealing in automobile spares. On receipt of information about sale of fake spare parts being sold under the name TOYOTA, the plaintiff company appointed Investigator and it came to be revealed that they were selling Spurious Oil Filter and Universal Joint Cross. It is alleged that the Investigators were able to purchase a Spurious Oil Filter from defendant No.3 and a Spurious Universal Joint Cross from defendant No.2. A legal notice was sent by the plaintiff to the defendants in February 2006 requiring them to refrain from unauthorized use of the trademark TOYOTA. There was no response to this notice which then was followed by a reminder sent in May 2006. Defendant No.2 replied to the notice denying infringement.

4. The plaintiff has sought injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or advertising auto spare parts under the trademark TOYOTA or any other trademark identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark TOYOTA. It has also sought injunction restraining the defendant from using the aforesaid mark on any goods not originating from the plaintiff company. The plaintiff has also sought damages amounting to Rs.25 Lacs besides delivering up of the infringing packaging goods, packaging, etc.

5. Defendant No.3 compromised with the plaintiff during pendency of the suit and a compromise decree was accordingly passed on 16th December 2008. The other defendants were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16th December 2008.

6. The plaintiff has filed affidavit of Mr. Koichiro Inagaki, General Manager, Department of Intellectual Property Division of the