JUDGMENT :

PRAYER : Appeal against the fair and final order dated 20.12.2016 made in I.A.No.87 of 2015 in O.S.No.40 of 2015 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.

The appeal has been preferred by the defendants, who suffered an order of interim injunction pending disposal of the suit, restraining them from infringing the plaintiff's/respondent's trademark by using deceptively similar mark “MRI” or any other marks similar or deceptively similar to the mark of the respondent namely, “CRI”.

2. The respondent is a part of “CRI” Group of Companies, which is the registered proprietor of trademark “CRI” for various goods falling under various classes of goods and services covered under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The trademark “CRI” has been licensed to one of the CRI Group Companies namely, CRI Pumps Private Limited, which is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of pumps, motors, valves, pipes, cables and pump accessories and spare parts by virtue of user licence agreement dated 2nd April, 2007. The mark “CRI” has been in continuous use by the group companies of the respondent ever since 1973. The said subsidiary company of the respondent/plaintiff, namely, “CRI Pumps Private Limited” has a global network of market selling its products in about 100 countries.

3. The 2nd defendant/2nd appellant is a businessman carrying on the business of trading in pumps. As the proprietor of Trade Supply India, he became a dealer of CRI Pumps Private Limited in 2011 by way of dealership agreement dated 15.05.2011 and has been doing only the said business of dealing in CRI brand Pumps and other products. In the meanwhile, it has come to the knowledge of the respondent that the 2nd appellant had been indulging in some unfair business practices behind the back of CRI Pumps Private Limited. The 2nd appellant along with his relatives and associate entities had promoted a private limited company in the name and style of TSI Engineering Private Limited, the 1st appellant herein with an address different from that of the 2nd appellant's proprietorship concern “Trade Supply India”.

4. It had come to the knowledge of the respondent that the new company namely, the 1st appellant is trading in pumps bearing the trademark “MRI” which closely resembles and is very much similar in form, style and phonetics to that of trademark “CRI” belonging to the respondent.

5. The respondent came to understand that the 1st appellant had applied for registration of the mark “MRI” encircled by an oval shaped device for the goods, Capital MonoBlock Pump, Submersible Pump, Centrifugal Pump and Electric Pump before the Registrar of Trademarks, Kolkata, claiming use of the mark from February, 2012. The appellants' wilfully and dishonestly adopted the mark which is deceptively similar to that of the respondent and falsely applied the same as their trademark and trade name knowing fully well that such use constitutes infringement and passing off the respondent's exclusive right, in the established trademark, trade name and trading style, as is available to them, under law, to a registered proprietor as well as the owner of a well known trademark.

6. The respondent would state that by infringement and passing off the respondent's trademark CRI, the appellants are unauthorisedly and illegally making commercial gains grabbing the goodwill and reputation of the respondent's trademark thereby infringing the exclusive right enjoyed by the respondent. By using the trademark “MRI”, which is visually and phonetically resembling the mark of the respondent, the appellants are not only causing infringement of the registered trademark of the respondent within the meaning of Section 29 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 but have also falsely applied the said trademark on goods and services within the meaning of Section 102 of Trademarks Act, 1999.

7. In view of the above, CRI Pu