The Plaintiff's longstanding use and recognition of the trademark 'EXIDE' was upheld, barring the Defendants from its use, leading to a permanent injunction and damages.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff-Exide Industries Limited, seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark and trading name `EXIDE', passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, delivery-up, etc. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of automotive and industrial batteries and claims rights in the mark `EXIDE' which is used in respect of lead acid storage batteries ranging from 2.5 Ah to 20,200 Ah capacity covering the broadest spectrum of applications. The Plaintiff is also stated to be manufacturing high-end batteries for submarines and for other security related machinery as well. It has various subsidiaries in India and abroad, including in the United Kingdom, Singapore and Sri Lanka. The Plaintiff s presence in the Indian market with the trademark `EXIDE' is tangible, widespread, continuous and uninterrupted, especially in view of the fact that the Plaintiff has more than 1750+ Exide Care centres offering servicing of batteries, and 48,000+ direct and indirect outlets, for sale of products.

3. The Plaintiff is the proprietor of several registered trademarks comprising the expression `EXIDE', including the first registration of the trademark `EXIDE' in India bearing registration No.694 dated 8th June, 1942 in Class-9. The Plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the mark `EXIDE' in Class 25, 11, 99, amongst others. The sales of the Plaintiff were more than Rs.10,000/- crores in the year 2018-2019. The Plaintiffs corporate name is also `Exide Industries Limited'. The Plaintiff avers that the mark `EXIDE' has become a well-known mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 Act.

4. The Plaintiff's case against the Defendants is that the Defendants are engaged in manufacture and sale of various products including the automotive products under the brand name `EXIDE', which is also used as part of the trading style of the Defendants. The records from the Trademark Registry also reveal that the trademark was applied for by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tuteja, trading as Defendant No.1-Krishna International. The records from the GST portal are also relied upon to argue that the Defendants are illegally using the mark `EXIDE'. The Linkedin profile of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tuteja also claims association with the Defendant No.2- M/s. Narula & Company, which is also using the mark `EXIDE' for its batteries. Defendant No.3-Rajesh Led & Phone Network Booster Accessories, is also, admittedly, an entity of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tuteja.

5. The Plaintiff submits that the listings for the Defendants' products were found on www.indiamart.com. Upon discovering the same, the Plaintiff conducted inquiries and it was revealed that Defendant No.1 was marketing the infringing products in packaging which are primarily available in two variants- `Naveen Exide Power' and `Made in Exide Power'. The `X' in the `EXIDE Power' logo was also similar to the trademark `EXIDE' used by the Plaintiff. Further investigation also revealed that Defendants were manufacturing a large variety of products like Conceal lights, LED Panel Lights, LED COB Lights bearing the mark `EXIDE'. All these products use the mark `EXIDE' blatantly in a prominent form. The Defendants also have various promotional materials bearing the mark `EXIDE', which has been circulated in the market. The Plaintiff, in fact, effected a purchase of the infringing products bearing the mark `EXIDE' sold by the Defendants, but no cash m