The use of a trademark that is deceptively similar to a registered trademark and the passing off of goods as those of another company constitute infringement of trademark and unfair competition.

Bhupinder Singh Dhillon, J.

1. The appellant, The General Electric Company of India (Private) Limited, filed a suit against the defendants pleading that the plaintiff is the original proprietor of a trade mark in India for its electrical goods including lamp-holders consisting of the letters "G.E.C." and was registered under Cls. 7, 9, 11 and 12 of the fourth schedule to the Trade Mark rules, 1942. It is averred that the plaintiffs electrical goods including lamp-holders are of very superior quality and the defendants have wrongfully sold and passed off and is selling and passing off the lamp-holders not of the plaintiffs manufacture as and for the plaintiffs lamp-holders. It is also averred that the defendants sell and pass off lamp-holders under the name of "A.E.C." or "E. C." Lamp-holders and the letter "A" of the letters "A.E.C." or "E. C." which letters are written or inscribed in the very same manner in which the letters "G.E.C." are inscribed on the lamp-holders of the plaintiffs manufacture. It is further averred that the letter "A" of the letters "A.E.C." is invariably and deliberately half obliterated so as to give an impression that the said letter "A" is in fact letter "G". It is pleaded that the defendants mislead the public to believe that they are the plaintiffs lamp-holders and thereby cause injury both to the public and to the plaintiff. It is further pleaded that the defendants infringed the plaintiffs trade mark and, therefore, a prayer was made that an injunction restraining the defendants and their servants and agents from infringing the plaintiffs trade mark, be issued. It was also prayed that a perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from putting up and offering for sale and selling and /or causing to be put up or offered for sale and sold lamp-holders not of the plaintiffs manufacture or merchandise or any wrappers in respect thereof bearing the marks "A.E.C." or "E. C." In any manner at all, be also issued and that a decree for damages of Rs. 1,000/- tentatively be also issued. In the written statement filed by the defendants, it is claimed that the plaintiffs goods have no reputation in the market and that the goods manufactured by the defendants company have a very high reputation throughout India. It is denied that the plaintiff company has any registration of their trade mark of lamp-holders and that the defendants ever wrongfully sold or passed off any lamp-holders as those of the plaintiffs manufacture. It is further denied that the trade mark "A.E.C." is similar to the trade mark "G.E.C." or that the word "A" is obliterated by the defendants as alleged by the plaintiff. It was, therefore, prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed. The learned trial Judge framed the following issues on the pleadings of the parties:-

-

1. Whether the suit has been rightly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction?

2. Whether the suit falls within the purview of Section 73 of the Trade Marks Act and is thus triable by this Court?

3. Whether the plaintiff company has got a registered trade mark for lamp-holders and their wrappers?

4. Whether the defendants had infringed the trade mark of the plaintiff with respect to lamp-holders and their wrappers?

5. Whether the defendants had been passing off their lamp holders as those of the plaintiff company?

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction prayed for?

7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to damages claimed for ?

8. Relief.

2. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in favour of the plaintiff. Under issue No. 3 it was held by the learned trial Judge that the plaintiffs company had nor registered trade mark for the lamp-holders and their wrappers. Under issue No. 4 it was held that the defendants had not infringed the trade mark of the plaintiff with respect to the lamp-holders and their wrappers. Under issue No. 5 it was held that the defendants never passed off their lamp-holders as that of the plaintiffs company. As a cons