Trademark owners are entitled to seek injunctions against unauthorized use of deceptively similar marks, particularly when defendants fail to contest the claims.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

C. Hari Shankar, J.

1. Summons, in the present suit, were issued by this Court on 31st January 2022. Despite service, the defendants have remained absent and have chosen not to file any written statement or response either to the suit or to the interlocutory applications filed therein.

2. In the circumstances, Ms. Nancy Roy, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, seeks that the suit be decreed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

3. By my order dated 5th January 2023, I have held that it is permissible for the court to, in an appropriate case, decree the suit on the basis of the averments in the plaint, on perusal of the plaint, the court does not find any issue on which an affidavit by way of evidence should be directed to be filed and which may appear to be contested.

4. Ms. Nancy Roy submits that as no such issue is involved in the present case, the suit may be decreed in terms of the prayers contained therein.

5. The plaintiff holds valid registrations of the marks in Class 12 w.e.f. 2nd April 1990 and in Class 7 w.e.f. 8th March 1995. The registrations are stated to be valid and subsisting as on date. The registration is in respect of oil filtration equipment. The photographs of the plaintiffs. product bearing the registered trade mark of the plaintiff are provided in the plaint thus:

6. The plaint also asserts that the plaintiff's goodwill in the mark has been incrementally increasing over a period of time. The sales figures relating to sales of the plaintiffs. products bearing the plaintiffs. mark, in India, during the period 2010 to 2020 have been provided, in para 13 of the plaint, thus:

7. The plaintiff also claims to have been incurring considerable amounts towards promotional and advertisement of its product, to the extent that, in 2019-20, expenses incurred on this score were to the tune of Rs. 4,21,457. Various new products, using the plaintiff's registered mark, have been launched from time to time, as per the assertions in the plaint.

8. The plaint also sets out various other encomiums and commendations that the plaintiff have, over a period of time, been awarded.

9. The defendant, it is alleged, is distributing and selling branded oil filter cartridges, using the brand "KLEENOIL". It is also alleged that Defendant 3 is, inter alia, importing counterfeit "KLEENOIL" branded oil filtration machines and cartridges, which it supplied to Defendants 1 and 2.

10. The plaint alleges that Defendant 1, who was a former employee of the plaintiff, was seeking to capitalise on the plaintiff's goodwill by manufacturing and marketing products similar to those of the plaintiff, under a phonetically deceptive mark "CLEANOIL". Comparative photographs of the plaintiff's product and the counterfeit product being sold by Defendant 1 using the "KLEENOIL" mark of the plaintiff are also provided, in para 51 of the plaint, thus:

11. The plaint refers to various other aspects in which the defendants are seeking to imitate the plaintiffs and convey an impression that their products are the products of the plaintiffs.

12. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has approached this Court, seeking (i) a permanent junction, restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering