Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
C. Rajasuria, J.
Wipro Cyprus Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Zeetel Electronics - Respondent
O.A. No's. 172 and 173 of 2010 in C.S. No. 156 of 2010
Decided On : 09-04-2010
YARDLEY - Trademark Infringement - Trade Marks Act, 1999, Sections 28, 29, 30 - The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the trade mark YARDLEY or any similar expression in relation to any product, based on the exclusive right of the plaintiff as the assignee of the trademark under Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The defendant's attempt to import goods bearing the plaintiff's trademark was held to violate the plaintiff's exclusive right, and the passing off action was not applicable in this case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff sought permanent and interim injunctions to restrain the defendant from using the trade mark YARDLEY or any similar expression in relation to any product, based on the plaintiff's exclusive right as the assignee of the trademark.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff, as the assignee of the trademark, had the exclusive right to use it in India, and the defendant's attempt to import goods bearing the plaintiff's trademark violated this right. The passing off action was not applicable in this case.
Issues: The issues considered were whether an interim injunction could be granted to restrain the defendant from using the trade mark YARDLEY or any similar expression, and whether an interim injunction could be granted to restrain the defendant from using the impugned name 'YARDLEY' in relation to any product.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff, as the assignee of the trademark, had the exclusive right to use it in India, and the defendant's attempt to import goods bearing the plaintiff's trademark violated this right. The passing off action was not applicable in this case.
Final Decision: O.A. No. 172 of 2010 was allowed, granting an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the trade mark YARDLEY. O.A. No. 173 of 2010 was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
C. Rajasuria, J.
O.A. No. 172 of 2010
1. Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction, restraining the Respondent, by itself, its principal, servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through him from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using the trade mark YARDLEY or any other similar sounding expression or in any media and use the same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade .mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the Applicant trade mark YARDLEY or in relation to any product including Talcum powder, body spray or any other cosmetics and toiletry products and use the same or use the mark in invoices, letters heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the Applicant registered Trade mark Nos. 84018 & 372280 in Class 3 or in any manner infringe the Applicant's registered Trade Mark pending disposal of the above suit.
O.A. No. 173 of 2010
Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction to restrain the Respondent, jointly and severally, by themselves, their Directors, servants, agents, representatives and all those acting in concert with them or claiming under or through them or otherwise however, from using the impugned name 'YARDLE' upon or in relation to any of their product including talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic and toiletry preparations and/or any other name/marks which may be identical to and/or deceptively similar to the Applicant corporate name, trade mark 'YARDLEY' and from in any manner, passing off or attempting to pass off or causing, enabling or assisting others to pass off their talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic preparations as and for the business and products of the Applicant, pending disposal of the above suit.
These Original Application coming on this day before this Court for hearing the court made the following order:
Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these applications would run thus;
(a) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following relief's:
to grant an order of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, jointly and severally, by themselves, their Directors, servants, agents, representatives and all those acting in concert with them or claiming under or through them or otherwise howsoever, from using the impugned name 'YARDLEY' upon or in relation to any of their product including talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic and toiletry preparations and/or any other name/marks which may be identical to and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff corporate name, trade mark 'YARDLEY' and from in any manner, passing off or attempting to pass off or causing, enabling or assisting others to pass off their talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic preparations as and for the business and products of the plaintiff.
to direct the defendant to surren
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
