JUDGMENT

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. An application, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, (“CPC” hereinafter), filed by Landmark Crafts Pvt Ltd, (“LC” hereinafter), seeking interlocutory injunction against Ganraj Enterprises, (“GE” hereinafter) and others in CS

(Comm) 664/2022, (Landmark Crafts Pvt Ltd v. Ganraj Enterprises), stands allowed by the learned District Judge (Commercial Court-04), Shahdara, (“the learned Commercial Court” hereinafter).

2. Aggrieved thereby, GE has preferred the present appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act 2015.

3. We have heard Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. J Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, at length.

Pleadings before the learned Commercial Court

4. The plaint

4.1 LC, in its plaint, before the learned Commercial Court, asserted as under:

(i) The mark HP was coined by Mr. Pankaj Lidoo in 1995. Pankaj Lidoo was operating a sole proprietorship in the name of Landmark Engineers. Under the mark HP, Landmark Engineers was dealing in the business of manufacturing, marketing and trading of self-drilling screws, blind rivets and allied products.

(ii) On 8 July 2002, Landmark Fasteners Pvt Ltd, (“LF” hereinafter) was incorporated by Mr. Pankaj Lidoo. Application No. 1566805 dated 8 June 2007, filed under Section 23 of the Trade Marks

Act, 1999 was allowed by the Trade Marks Registry, whereupon LF obtained the registration of the word Mark HP in Class 6 for “all kinds of self-drilling screws” with effect from the said date. However, the registration was restricted for sale of goods in UP. Subsequently, LF submitted Application No. 2848372 on 24 November 2014, in Class 6 for registration of the HP word mark for all kinds of self-drilling screws, which was also granted with no territorial caveat. For the sake of convenience, we would refer, hereinafter, to the registrations asserted by LC by their Applications Numbers, as Registrations No. 1566805 and 2848372.

(iii) The respondent LC was incorporated by Mr. Pankaj Lidoo and some of the directors of LF on 11 May 2007.

(iv) Vide Assignment Deeds dated 5 August 2013 and 29 April 2019, the aforenoted HP marks were assigned by LF to LC. Since then, there has been uninterrupted use of the HP mark by LC. Thus, LC was the owner of the registered word mark HP in Class 6 for all kinds of self-drilling screws, on pan-India basis.

(v) LC was also the registered proprietor of the device mark with effect from 11 July 2018 in Class 6 for “self-drilling screws, blind rivets and drywall screws”. The said mark was being used by LC on pan-India basis since then.

(vi) By dint of continuous use, LC had amassed enviable reputation and goodwill in the aforesaid marks for self-drilling screws, blind rivets and other similar goods. To buttress this submission, the plaint referred to various awards earned by LC as well as its sales turnover and advertisement and promotional expenses.

(vii) Appellant 1 GE was the sole proprietorship of Appellant 2 Shubhangi S Jachak. Appellant 2, in collusion with Appellant 3, Santosh Jachak, was, through GE, engaging in manufacturing, marketing and selling and otherwise dealing in goods which were identical with or similar to the goods in which LC dealt under its registered mark HP. The appellants were using the mark HP⁺ and HP^®+ for manufacturing, assembling and trading of self-drilling screw, similar to those manufactured and sold by LC. This fact came to the knowledge of LC in the second week of June 2022.

(viii) The use of the marks HP⁺ and HP^®+ by GE infringed the registered HP trade mark of LC and also amounted to passing off, by GE, of its products as the products of LC. GE had also resorted to using packaging, for its product, which was similar to the packaging used by LC. The motif of a shikara, (boat), which figured on the packing of LC was also copied by GE on its packaging. The possibility of confusion was exacerbated by GE

by it