The court applied the provisions of CPC Order 13-A, as amended by Act 4 of 2016, to grant a summary judgment in a trademark infringement case based on the defendant's stand.

JUDGMENT :

M. Sundar, J. –

1. Mr. K. Harishankar, learned counsel on record is before this Commercial Division on behalf of the plaintiff. Mr.S.Karthic, learned counsel on record for the sole defendant is before this Commercial Division.

2. This suit pertains to alleged infringement of a registered Trademark. The nucleus of the suit is a registered Trademark bearing Registration No.1819723. The mark is 'Mi-Fi' . I shall refer to this mark and say more about it infra in this judgment.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that it provides wide range of mobile computing and telecommunication services, specializing in wire line networking infrastructure and wireless LAN solutions in India. It is also the case of the plaintiff that its business commenced in the year 1982. The claims of the plaintiff are articulated in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the plaint, which read as follows:

5. "The Plaintiff Company provides wide range of mobile computing and telecommunication services, specializing in wire line networking infrastructure and wireless LAN solutions in India. The plaintiff's business commenced in the year 1982. The plaintiff is having an industrial presence of move than three decades and has acquired rich experience in delivering quality software and wireless products/solutions in various technologies. The plaintiff apart from being a leading wireless provider in India offers its services in many other countries all over the world like USA, UAE, Sri Lanka and Maldives.

6. It is humbly submitted that the plaintiff offers high speed internet, data and entertainment connectivity to various sectors such as Hospitality Industry, Shopping Malls, Health Clinics & Restaurants, Salons and Spas, Cafres & Ice Cream parlours, Shops & Boutiques, Clubs and Restaurants. Service Centers etc. The plaintiff's clientele includes industry leaders in luxury hotels like Taj Group of Hotels i.e., Meridien Hotels, Hyatt Regency, leaders in luxury hotels like Taj Group of Hotels i.e., Meridien Hotels, Hyatt Regency, The Park, ITC Group of Hotels etc., The Plaintiff also provides its services for many airports, educational institutions etc.., and caters to a wide range of wireless applications for various other industry segments in the name of Mi-Fi."

4. The plaintiff claims that it has obtained registration for its trademark Mi-Fi vide Trademark No. 1819723 in Class 42. The date of registration is 19.05.2009 and the registration is valid upto 19.05.2019. The goods and descriptions are as follows:

"Trading of computer, computer hardware, computer consultancy, computer software, computer programming, computer software design, computer systems analysis, computer data, telecommunication communication services with products, computer net working products, computer law and Wlan products and services, video projection services, data recovery, leasing/rental and other computer related services."

5. Depiction of the aforesaid mark by the plaintiff is as follows:

6. Depiction of the alleged offending mark of the defendant (as placed before me in suit file by the plaintiff) is as follows:

7. It is the case of the plaintiff that they have applied for three more registrations and the details are as follows:

8. It is the case of the plaintiff that they recently came to know that the defendant is using a deceptively similar mark and is infringing the plaintiff's aforesaid registered trademark. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the line of activity is the same. There is an overlap with regard to channel of business also is plaintiff's further say. It is the further case of the plaintiff that immediately on coming to know about the aforesaid alleged infringemen