Registered trademarks do not confer exclusive rights over generic terms; plaintiffs must prove confusion or damage for passing off claims, which was not established here.

JUDGMENT :

C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.

The defendants in OS 1/2023 on the file of the District Court, Palakkad are the appellants. (For the purpose of convenience the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court.)

2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated by the Government of Kerala by name 'Metal Industries Limited'. They filed the suit for injunction, alleging infringement of its trade name by the defendants which is a firm by name 'The 'Shornur Metal Industries LLP.' According to the plaintiffs, the plaintiff/company was incorporated with the intention to manufacture iron and steel products namely agricultural tools and equipments such as sickle, spade, shovel, pickaxe, axe, saw, cutleries, mammatties and all types of agricultural allied tools and equipments. They have got a brand name 'Tusker' with an emblem. The plaintiff/company was found about 94 years back with registered office at Shornur. The products of the plaintiff/company has high demand and have adorable credibility among the people. The caption of the company was registered under Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act , 1999 and as such, no other person could infringe the registered trade mark of the plaintiff. The plaintiff/company is popularly known as 'Shornur Metal Industries', as it is situated in Shornur.

3. According to the plaintiffs, the 1^st defendant/firm was established in 2019 and they are also manufacturing iron and steel agricultural tools and equipments like the plaintiff and it is also functioning within a radius of three kms. from the plaintiff/company. In the year 2020, the plaintiff/company understood that the name of the 1^st defendant has created confusion among the public and it is still continuing. Since the 1^st defendant is also using the name 'Shornur Metal Industries' the people misunderstands that the 1^st defendant firm is the 1^st plaintiff company. Since the 1^st plaintiff's domain name is registered under the Trade Marks Act , the 1^st defendant has no right or authority to use the same name as that of the 1^st plaintiff for identical or deceptively similar name. The caption 'Shornur Metal Industries' has deceptive similarity to the name of the 1^st plaintiff 'Metal Industries' and the intention of the defendants is to confuse the common people and other innocent buyers and small traders who are trading with the plaintiff/company for long years. The defendants' domain name is deceptively similar to the domain name of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff/company has sent registered notice to the defendants asking them to stop using the name 'Shornur Metal Industries', they have sent a reply raising false contentions. It was in the above context that the plaintiff filed the suit seeking remedies under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act , including a permanent prohibitory injunction against using the domain caption 'Metal Industries', a mandatory injunction to remove the domain name 'Metal Industries' from the defendants' caption, officially undergoing and advertising and for damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.

4. The defendants 1 and 2 filed a written statement, contending that the business of the plaintiff/company and the 1^st defendant firm are not similar or identical and therefore, there is no chance for any confusion among the public. According to them, the manufactured products of the defendants available are unique and the products are manufactured in accordance with the requirements of the customers. The products of the plaintiff/company are different from the products of the de