JUDGMENT :

One of the products manufactured and marketed by the plaintiff is a glucose-based chewy tablet sold under the trademark BOLTS. The defendants also manufacture and market a glucose-based chewy tablet under the trademark VOLT. The suit was filed seeking relief in respect of alleged passing off by the defendants of their products under the mark VOLT as the products of the plaintiff bearing the mark BOLTS. The plaintiff also sought to restrain the defendants from using the tag line ENERGY OF GLUCON-D, ANYWHERE, ANY TIME, on the ground that the said tag line is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s tag line INSTANT ENERGY, ANYTIME ANYWHERE. Pursuant to the interim application being contested, the defendants removed the tag line ENERGY OF GLUCON-D, ANYWHERE, ANYTIME. The plaintiff had also prayed for relief in respect of the colour scheme and get up of the defendants’ packaging, as represented in Document No.2, which was annexed to the plaint. Such colour scheme and get up of the packaging was modified by the defendants, in terms of an interim compromise, and O.S.A.Nos.111 to 113 of 2015 were disposed of on that basis without prejudice to the plaintiff’s objection to the use of the mark VOLT. Consequently, prayers (b) & (c) of paragraph 24 of the plaint do not survive for adjudication.

2. The plaintiff stated the following. Wipro Limited entered into a scheme of arrangement with Azim Premji Custodial Services Private Limited and Wipro Trademarks Holding Limited. By such scheme, the customer care products were transferred to and vested in Azim Premji Custodial Services Private Limited. The scheme was approved by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court by order dated 01.03.2013 in Company Petition Nos.8, 9 and 10 of 2013. Thereafter, Azim Premji Custodial Services Private Limited changed its name and is presently known as Wipro Enterprises Limited, i.e. the plaintiff herein. In course of business, on 16.04.2003, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff acquired the trademark GLUCOVITA from Hindustan Lever Limited. As a result of the de-merger, the said mark vests with the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the proprietor of several trademarks, including BOLTS. The mark BOLTS was conceived and adopted the mark in the year 2012 and the plaintiff uses the mark along with the house mark GLUCOVITA to market and sell glucose based chewy tablets. These tablets contain three active ingredients, namely, vitamin-D, calcium and iron. These tablets may be consumed without water and therefore they may be carried in the pocket and are a good source of instant energy.

3. The plaintiff further stated as follows. It earned Rs.26.35 million from the sale of the above mentioned product in the financial year 2012-2013, Rs.171.07 million in the financial year 2013-2014 and Rs.233.90 million in the financial year 2014-2015. A considerable amount of money was expended in promoting products under the trademark BOLTS. In the financial year 2012-2013, it is stated that the sales expenditure of Rs.26.35 million and advertising expenditure of Rs.21.60 million was incurred. This increased to Rs.171.07 million towards sales expenses and Rs.81.54 million towards advertisement expenses in the financial year 2013-2014 and further increased to Rs.182.65 million towards sales expenses and Rs.112.42 million towards advertisement expenses in the financial year 2014-2015.

4. In December 2014, the plaintiff stated that it noticed an identical product in the market, which was manufactured and marketed by the first and second defendants and sold by the third defendant. According to the plaintiff, the adoption of the mark VOLT by the defendants is mala fide because the said mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark BOLTS. The plaintiff further stated that the mala fide intention of the defendants is clear from the adoption of an identical colour scheme and get up for the packaging. The plaintiff also stated that the adoption of the tag line ENERGY OF GLUCON-D ANYWHERE