2013 (2) TMI 844 - HC - Indian Laws

Plaintiffs Win Trademark Case: Infringement Ruled, Permanent Injunction Granted

The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a trademark infringement and passing off case. The defendant's use of a name similar to the plaintiffs' ... - Issues involved: The judgment involves issues related to trademark infringement, passing off, and violation of statutory and common law rights.Trademark Infringement and Passing Off: The plaintiffs sought permanent injunction against the defendant for carrying on business under the mark 'SATYA' or any deceptively similar mark. The defendant did not appear in court, leading to ex parte proceedings. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's use of the name 'SATYA' infringed upon their registered trademark and was intended to gain unfair advantage over their goodwill.Evidence and Arguments: The plaintiffs provided evidence of their incorporation, business activities, turnover, and trademark registrations. They demonstrated the extensive use of the mark 'SATYA' in their business operations for over 25 years. The court noted the plaintiffs' substantial promotional expenses and the mark's recognition as a well-known mark. The defendant, incorporated in 2009, did not contest the suit.Decision and Injunction: The court found in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the defendant's use of the name 'Staya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd.' infringed upon the plaintiffs' trademark rights. A decree for permanent injunction was granted, restraining the defendant from using any name identical or deceptively similar to the trademark 'SATYA.' The court also highlighted the prohibition under Section 20 of the Companies Act, 1956 regarding registration of companies with names resembling existing trademarks.Operative Period and Compliance: To allow the defendant time for rectification, a three-month period was granted before the injunction became effective. The plaintiffs were permitted to serve the judgment and decree on the Registrar of Companies for necessary actions in case of non-compliance by the defendant. No costs were awarded due to the defendant's lack of contestation in the suit.