2019 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 4398
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
MR.SAILESH KUMAR AND 2 OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
M/S.AGARWAL GLASSWORKS – Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.07.2019 CORAM:
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY C.S.No. 828 of 2009
1.Sailesh Kumar S/o.Late Ishwar Dar Gupta, Partner, M/s.Prakash Glass and Rubber Works, Survey No.240, Plot No.7-4-96/2, Peddammagadda, Ganganpahad, District, Rangareddy 501 323, Andhra Pradesh.
2.Kapil Kumar S/o.Omprakash Gupta, Partner, M/s.Prakash Glass and Rubber Works, Survey No.240, Plot No.7-4-96/2, Peddammagadda, Ganganpahad, District, Rangareddy 501 323, Andhra Pradesh.
3.M/s.Prakash Glass and Rubber Works, A registered partnership firm Survey No.240, Plot No.7-4-96/2, Peddammagadda, Ganganpahad, District, Rangareddy 501 323, Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Managing Partner Sailesh Kumar. .. Plaintiffs Vs
1.M/s.Agarwal Glassworks, A partnership firm, Represented by its partners, Plot No. B-12, Industrial Area, Tirlokpur Road, Jorugaon, Opp. Ganapati, Kalaamb – 173 030, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh.
2.Satya Prakash Partner of M/s.Agarwal Glassworks, A partnership firm, Plot No. B-12, Industrial Area, Tirlokpur Road, Jorugaon, Opp. Ganapati, Kalaamb – 173 030, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh.
3.Surender Rana M/s.Agarwal Glassworks, A partnership firm, Plot No. B-12, Industrial Area, Tirlokpur Road, Jorugaon, Opp. Ganapati, Kalaamb – 173 030, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh. .. Defendants Prayer : Plaint filed under Order IV Rule 1 O.S. Rules and Order VII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Sections 27, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, praying for judgment and decree:
a)granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendants by itself, its servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through them from using the plaintiffs' registered trademark as the Company name, or in any media and use the same in public issue, invoices, letter heads and visiting cards, goods or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually, phonetically or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs Registered Trade Marks ATUL PUF or in any manner infringing the plaintiffs Registered Trade Mark No.1195219.
b)directing the defendants to surrender to the plaintiffs all the invoices, letter heads and visiting cards goods or any other trade literature and all other materials containing/bearing the name ATUL PUF.
c)for a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiffs, directing the defendants to render an account of profits made by them by the use of the plaintiffs' registered trademark as the Company name and for a final decree in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount of the profits found to have been made by the defendants, after the defendants have rendered accounts. d)directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs the costs of the suit.
For Plaintiffs : M/s.C.Daniel and Gladys Daniel For Defendants : set ex-parte
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiffs, viz., M/s.Prakash Glass and Rubber Works, are engaged in the manufacture and sale of different types of windscreen glass for automobiles since 2001. The plaintiffs have been manufacturing and selling the following categories of glass for automobiles.
a) Toughened and laminated glasses (Motor accessories & parts)
b) Glass & Glassware c) Wooden scrap d) Windscreen glasses.
2. The plaintiffs state that the mark 'ATULPUF' was adopted a trademark in the year 2001. The plaintiffs in order to claim proprietary right to the trademark 'ATULPUF' filed an application for registration of the trademark on 28.04.2003, after conducting a search at the Office of the Trade Marks Registry and on finding that there is no same or similar mark pending or registered on the file of the Register of Trade Marks. The application for registration was numbered as 1195219 in class 12. After scrutinizing the application, the mark was advertised in the Journal No. Supp: 1327-3. Since no opposition was filed within the statutory period prescribed under the Act and Rules, the plaintiffs' mark was granted registration. The registration is in full