Registered trade mark protection extends to corporate names where adoption is not bona fide and confusion is likely.

A registered proprietor may restrain use of an identical mark in another trader's corporate name where the adoption is not bona fide and is likely to cause confusion or an association with the proprietor's business. The Court held that the plaintiffs' power of attorney was wide enough to authorise institution of the suit, and no valid revocation was shown, so the objection to filing failed. It further held that use of "Bedrock" by the first defendants prima facie infringed the registered marks and amounted to passing off; the defence of bona fide use of one's own name under Section 34 failed. Pending rectification proceedings, delay, and balance of convenience did not bar interim relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiffs had authority to institute the proceedings through their constituted attorney; (ii) whether the first defendants' use of the word "Bedrock" as part of their corporate name amounted to infringement of the plaintiffs' registered trade marks and passing off, and whether the exception for bona fide use of one's own name applied; (iii) whether the pendency of rectification proceedings or the alleged delay and balance of convenience barred interim relief.

Issue (i): whether the plaintiffs had authority to institute the proceedings through their constituted attorney.

Analysis: The power of attorney executed in favour of the person who signed and verified the plaint was held to be wide enough to include the institution of the suit. The document was also found to be irrevocable unless revoked in the manner provided therein, and no valid cancellation was shown.

Conclusion: The objection to institution of the suit failed.

Issue (ii): whether the first defendants' use of the word "Bedrock" as part of their corporate name amounted to infringement of the plaintiffs' registered trade marks and passing off, and whether the exception for bona fide use of one's own name applied.

Analysis: The registered proprietors were entitled to the exclusive statutory right under Section 28 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The Court held that the first defendants had adopted the word "Bedrock" not merely as a descriptive or innocent reference but in circumstances showing an intention to ride on the plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill. The materials relied upon included the Diwali greeting card, the company formation documents, the common family and business background, and the overlapping field of activity. The defence under Section 34 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 was rejected because the adoption was not found to be bona fide. The Court further held that the use of the mark in the corporate name created a prima facie likelihood of confusion and suggested an association with the plaintiffs' business.

Conclusion: The first defendants' use of "Bedrock" in their corporate name constituted prima facie infringement and passing off, and the Section 34 defence failed.

Issue (iii): whether the pendency of rectification proceedings or the alleged delay and balance of convenience barred interim relief.

Analysis: The pendency of rectification proceedings did not prevent the registered proprietor from asserting statutory rights while the mark remained on the register. The Court also held that the plaintiffs had acted promptly after learning of the defendants' activity and that delay was not fatal. Balance of convenience was not treated as defeating relief in the presence of a strong prima facie case.

Conclusion: Interim relief was not barred on these grounds.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case for protection of their registered mark, and the defendants were restrained from using the mark in their corporate name and in relation to goods other than those covered by the permitted-user arrangement.

Ratio Decidendi: A registered proprietor may restrain use of an identical trade mark in another trader's corporate name where the adoption is not bona fide and is likely to cause confusion or suggest an association, and the statutory exception for bona fide use of one's own name does not protect such conduct.

---