Trademark rights include protection against unauthorized use of similar marks causing confusion or deception, maintaining the integrity and goodwill of the established trademark.

JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J.

1. This Suit has been filed by the plaintiffs, originally against 12 defendants praying, for the following reliefs:

"i) An order for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their principal officers, partners, servants, representatives and agents or any of them, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in buses or any other products and services under the trademark VOLVO, VOIVO, VCLVC or any other mark deceptively similar thereto or using the trademark VOLVO in any other manner so as to infringe the Plaintiffs' registered trademark VOLVO;

ii) An order for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their principal officers, partners, servants, representatives and agents or any of them, from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in buses or any other products and services under the trademark VOLVO, VOIVO, VCLVC or any other mark deceptively similar thereto or using the trademark VOLVO in any other manner so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendants' goods and/or business as that of the Plaintiffs;

iii) An order for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their principal officers, partners, servants, representatives and agents or any of them, from using the trade mark VOLVO in any manner whatsoever on goods or services not originating from the Plaintiffs or not made under the Plaintiffs' quality control thus leading to dilution of the distinctiveness of the said mark and tarnishing the reputation of the Plaintiffs' trademark VOLVO;

iv) A decree for damages be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants;

v) An order for delivery up to the Plaintiffs for destruction/erasure all the goods, stickers, cartons, packing, dies, articles, papers and other material of the defendants bearing the impugned mark VOLVO;

vi) An order for costs of the suit."

2. For the sake of clarity, I shall be referring to the defendants by their original numbers in the present judgment.

3. By an order dated 07.10.2005, an ad-interim ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants, restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale the buses under the trade mark `VOLVO' or any other mark deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiffs. Subsequently by an order dated 26.02.2007, this ad-interim order was confirmed by this Court.

4. On 29.05.2007, the suit was decreed against the defendant nos.1 to 3 and the defendant nos.11 and 12 on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the said parties.

5. Further, by the above order the defendant nos. 4 to 7 and 9 were proceeded ex-parte.

6. The suit was decreed in terms of the paragraph 31 (i) to (iii) of the Plaint reproduced hereinabove against the original defendant nos.8 and 10, by an order dated 07.09.2009. The said order further directed the said defendants to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as costs in the suit.

7. I may herein note that as the suit had already been settled and decreed between the original defendant nos.1 to 3 and defendant nos.11 and 12, the order dated 07.09.2009 had decreed the suit as against the defendant nos.5 and 7 of the Amended Memo of Parties, as was also clarified by an order dated 28.05.2010 of this Court.

8. The plaintiffs, thereafter, examined