The court applied the Parle principle for comparison of competing marks and found that the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark, leading to infringement and passing off.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Suit is preferred, under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, Sections 51, 63,& 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 27, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying for

a) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their directors, partners/proprietors, servants, representatives, successors, agents, stockists, dealers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers or any of them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's copyright in the Artistic Work OOB Blue Label.

b) for granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their directors, partners/proprietors, servants, representatives, successors, agents, stockists, dealers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers or any of them from in any manner infringing the plaintiff's registered Trade Mark OOB BLUE under No.512437 in Class 3;

c) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their directors, partners/proprietors, servants, representatives, successors, agents, stockists, dealers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers or any of them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass-off Defendant's goods as that of the plaintiff's goods by use of Trade Mark 007 BLUE Label or any mark/label deceptively similar to Plaintiff's OOB BLUE Label or in any other manner whatsoever;

d) A preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the Defendants to render an account of profit made by them by sale of ultramarine blue products under Trade Mark 007 BLUE Label and final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff for the amount of the profits found to have been made by the Defendants after rendering accounts;

e) a decree directing the Defendants to surrender to the Plaintiff for destruction of all goods, labels, dies, moulds, printing materials, pamphlets, brochures and other materials bearing Trade Mark 007 Blue Label or any other deceptively similar marks

f) for costs.

g) such further or other orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.)

1. Plaint in captioned suit (C.S.No.643 of 2008) was presented on 25.06.2008 and date of institution of suit is 03.07.2008.

2. There is a sole plaintiff and a lone defendant in the captioned suit. The main suit has been filed inter alia with prayers for injunctive reliefs inter alia qua plaintiff Company's copyright trademark rights in 'OOB BLUE' and 'TEMPLE BLUE' marks {hereinafter referred to as 'said marks' in this judgment for the sake of convenience and clarity} which are being applied qua 'ultramarine blue manufactured for laundry and industrial use' [hereinafter 'said product' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity].

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was established in the year 1962, it has factory in Ambattur near Chennai with a work force of about 100, it manufactures high quality said product which is being sold under various marks, the foremost and prime being aforementioned said marks.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that it obtained trademark registration vide Registration No.512437 in Class 3 which is effective from 26.06.1989. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the registration is being renewed from time to time. There is a specific pleading in the plaint that the registration was subsisting on the date of presentation of plaint as well as on the date of institution of suit.

5. The pleadings are that in January of 2008, the plaintiff company's marketing team at various locations in Tamil Nadu, received complaints regarding circulation of product similar to said product manufactured by defendant in pouches with deceptively similar label.

6. On the above trigger, captioned suit was presented inter alia pleading that such deceptively similar pouches are infringement and deception. The offending pouches of the defendant is deceptively similar is plaintiff's sheet anchor pleading. It is a clear case of infringement and passing off i