Trademark infringement requires proving exclusive rights to a mark and likelihood of confusion among consumers; a valid settlement can resolve disputes between parties effectively.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. Plaintiff has approached this Court for passing an order for permanent injunction restraining all the defendants, their successors, franchisees, licensees, distributors, representatives, assignees, agents and any one acting for and/or on their behalf from using the or mark and any other trade name/trademark/trading style/domain name identical/deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark as a trademark or part of trademark, trade name or part of trade name, corporate name or part of corporate name, domain name or part of domain name or in any manner whatsoever in relation to their goods/services or in any manner whatsoever, which would cause confusion or deception amounting to infringement of the registered trademarks of the petitioner. He also seeks direction for passing an order to take any and/or all steps necessary to block the online websites that solicit the business of the defendants and features which bear or incorporate; the or trademark or anything deceptively or confusingly similar thereto; and any other indicia whatsoever that shows any association of the defendants' products and/or services or trademark with the plaintiff's products and/or services. He further seeks direction to deliver to the plaintiff's attorneys or representatives for destruction all products, labels, signs, stationary, business cards, prints, packages, plates, dies, wrappers, receptacles, materials and advertisements in their possession or under their control, bearing the or mark, or any simulation, reproduction, copy or colorable imitation of the Plaintiff's mark. Further directing the defendants to immediately withdraw application in class 21 and/or any other application(s) filed by the defendants for registration of the or mark, whether in word or stylized form, or any other application filed for registration of a mark deceptively similar to the mark; an order directing the defendants to allow inspection of their accounts to assist in ascertaining the amount of profits made by them and/or damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the defendants' use of the offending mark and a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for the amount found due. The plaintiff be additionally granted exemplary and punitive damages at least to the tune of Rs.2,00,00,050/-. Also seeks directions for declaration that the trademark is a well-known mark belonging to the Plaintiff and cost of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is running a business of manufacturing, importing and trading various kinds of personal protection wearables for industrial, commercial and non-commercial uses and specialises in rubber gloves since 2010 either made in Malaysia or from pure Malaysian latex with the house name of M/s Krishna International and has more than 5 brands. On the other hand, defendant nos.1 to 11 are engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling, distributing to the wholesale and retail markets various kinds of rubber gloves. The word was adopted and first used and registered as a trademark by the plaintiff in respect of gloves for household purposes. Plaintiff has the exclusive right to use the above trademark in relation to the goods for which they are registered and take action for infringement thereof in accordance with the provisions of law. The plaintiff has incurred expenditures on the promotion and advertisement of his products under trademark in India as well as all over the world. The plaintiff has al