The use of a registered trademark on goods intended for export, which is intended for a specific customer outside India who has registration for the said trademark, does not constitute infringement of the registered trademark.

1. Pending suit for infringement, passing off and for appropriate reliefs of injunction, rendition of accounts and damages in respect of the trade secrets of the plaintiff, the plaintiff came up with 6 applications, the details of which are as follows:-

(i) O.A.No.925 of 2010 for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from committing infringement of the registered trademarks of the plaintiff.

(ii) O.A.No.926 of 2010 for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from passing off their electrical products as that of the plaintiff's.

(iii) O.A.No.927 of 2010 for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner using the plaintiff's trade secrets, confidential information, consumer data, international standard certifications, product code, catalogue numbers and other information.

(iv) A.No.4676 of 2010 under class 14 of the Letters Patent, to combine different causes of action, such as infringement, passing off etc.

(v) A.No.4677 of 2010 seeking the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and take into possession, all infringing materials and accounts and invoices and

(vi) A.No.4678 of 2010 for a pro-order against the Collector and Commissioner of Customs, prohibiting them from exporting the consignment of infringing materials.

2. On 25.8.2010, all the above applications were moved for ad interim ex parte orders and S.Rajeswaran, J., granted an interim order of injunction only in O.A.No.926 of 2010 and also appointed an Advocate Commissioner in A.No.4677 of 2010. In O.A.Nos.925 of 2010, 927 of 2010, A.Nos.4676 of 2010 and 4678 of 2010, the learned Judge ordered notice returnable by 4 weeks. In other words, an injunction was granted only in respect of passing off, though the prayer for passing off was of greater detail and too elastic in nature. 3. After service of notice, the first defendant came up with an application in A.No.5573 of 2010, seeking to vacate the interim order of injunction. When it came up for hearing on 8.10.2010 before A.Arumughaswamy, J., an undertaking was given by the first respondent to the effect that they will not use the logos UL and CSA and the file numbers E178264 and 107484-0-000 while exporting their products. After recording the said undertaking, the learned Judge clarified that the first respondent is permitted to export his products without using the logos UL and CSA and file Nos.E178264 and 107484-0-000. But the modification was confined only to the first respondent. 4. Again O.A.No.926 of 2010 and A.No.5573 of 2010 came up for hearing on 21.10.2010. At that time, it was pointed out that the undertaking given on 8.10.2010 was only in respect of the file and folio numbers and that the use of the CSA and UL logo are necessary for every export. Therefore, the order dated 8.10.2010 was modified to the following effect:-

"1) The first respondent may export the products manufactured by them without mentioning the CG logo of the plaintiff.

2) The CE marking, CSA and UL logos and the product codes may be used by the first respondent without mentioning the numbers E178264 and 107484-0-000 of the plaintiff.

3) Consequently the second respondent shall receive the products exported/to be exported by first respondent."

5. Again O.A.No.926 of 2010 and A.No.5573 of 2010, came up for hearing on 10.11.2010. It was reported at that time, that the Advocate Commissioner could not complete the inspection due to various reasons. Therefore, this Court directed the Commissioner to complete the inspection and file a report within a week and also extended the interim order.

6. Thereafter, all the applications were taken up for hearing and the Advocate Commissioner also filed his report. It was taken on record and I heard Mr.P.S.Raman, learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr.M.S.Krishnan, learned Senior Counsel for the first defendant and Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned counsel for the second defendant.

7. The case of the plaintiff in brief, is a