Trademark infringement occurs when parties use marks that are identical or deceptively similar, causing confusion; summary judgment is appropriate when defendants fail to contest claims or provide a proper defense.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BANSAL, J.

CS (COMM) 598/2023 & I.A. 42672/2024 (Under Order XIII-A of the CPC seeking summary judgment against defendants)

1. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the well-known trademark of the plaintiff, passing off their goods and services as that of the plaintiff, along with other ancillary reliefs.

PLEADINGS IN THE PLAINT

2. The plaintiff, Tata Sons Private Limited, is a company duly incorporated in the year 1917 as a body corporate under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. The plaintiff is the promoter and principal investment holding company of various TATA Companies, and is India’s oldest, largest, most trusted and best-known business conglomerate.

3. The plaintiff, being the holding company of the TATA Group of Companies, represents its own and the interests of all Tata companies, as also the image and reputation of the name and well-known trademark TATA and permutations/combinations thereof. The plaintiff is the owner and registered proprietor of the well-known mark TATA and permutations/combinations thereof in class 9 which is the relevant class for the purposes of the instant suit. The trademark registrations/applications of the plaintiff in respect of the plaintiff’s ‘TATA’ and ‘TATA’ formative marks have been filed as document no.14 along with the plaint.

4. The trade name/trademark ‘TATA’ is derived from the surname of the plaintiff’s founder, Shri Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata, which is a rare patronymic name possessing the distinctiveness of an invented word. The plaintiff, for its own business activities and those of its group companies, subsidiaries and companies promoted by it, has continuously and consistently been using the said trade mark/trade name since its inception in the year 1917 whereas the use of the name/trade mark ‘TATA’ by the predecessors-in-business of the plaintiff dates back to the year 1868.

5. Furthermore, the marks TATA and other TATA formative marks have been acknowledged as well-known by this Hon’ble Court as well as the Trademark Registry. The plaintiff has filed a copy of the list of well-known trademarks maintained by the Indian Trademarks Registry acknowledging the plaintiff’s trademark TATA and its permutations thereof as well-known trademarks within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) read with Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 as document no.20 of the plaint.

6. The plaintiff, its group companies, subsidiaries as well as the companies promoted by it collectively are India’s largest private-sector employer, comprising of over 100 major operating companies. There are about 29 publicly listed Tata companies with a combined market capitalization of about $311 billion (INR 23.6 trillion) as on March 31, 2022. The revenue of the Tata companies taken together in 2021-2022 was about $128 billion (INR 9.6 trillion).

7. The defendant no.1, Anilbhai M. Amrutiya and the defendant no.2, Mayur Kapuriya appear to be the partners of two business entities/firms called M/s Tirumala Electricals and M/s Tirumala Penal located in Rajkot, Gujrat.

8. The defendants claim to be engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling panel boxes, control panels for submersible pumps and metal boxes across all major cities in India including New Delhi.

9. In March 2023, the plaintiff’s counsel came across a trademark application bearing no. 4554263 dated 2^nd July, 2020, which had been filed by the defendant no.1 on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis for the mark TATA GOLD/. The plaintiff’s counsel filed an opposition to the same on 27^th March, 2023. The application has subsequently been withdrawn vide a withdrawal letter dated 23^rd September, 2023.

10. In July, 2023, the plaintiff came to know through various market sources that the defendants’ products i.e., control panel for submersible pump, under the mark TATA GOLD/ were being sold and marketed by the defendants across India including Delhi. Immediately upon coming to know about