Trademark misuse in online publications led to declaration and permanent injunction restraining specified defendants from using the mark.

Plaintiffs proved unauthorized online use of their registered mark leading to trademark infringement, passing off and unfair competition; evidence of reproduced blogs and untraceable authors supported finding of misuse and risk to investors, so a declaration and permanent injunction were granted restraining specified defendants from using the marks. The court recognised the marks as well known domestically and internationally and held that unauthorised articles authored in the mark's name infringe exclusive trademark rights, causing potential monetary loss. The suit was decreed against two defendants as prayed; plaintiffs may sue other unidentified defendants separately if they locate contact details.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration and permanent injunction restraining use of the registered mark EVERSTONE and EVERSTONE CAPITAL, and related reliefs for trademark infringement, passing off and unfair competition in respect of publications on the defendants' online platforms.

Analysis: The plaint and accompanying public documents, including registered trademark certificates and website screenshots, establish proprietary and statutory rights in the mark EVERSTONE in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have demonstrated reputation and goodwill in the mark through continuous use, domain ownership and significant commercial activity. The unauthorised publications and use of the mark on various online platforms, including domains held in proxy, create a real risk of confusion and potential monetary loss to third parties seeking investment advice. No defence or rebuttal evidence has been filed by the defendants served, and certain defendants remain untraceable; accordingly the pleadings and documentary record stand unrebutted and support entitlement to the claimed reliefs.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs' claim for declaration and permanent injunction against the impugned use of EVERSTONE and EVERSTONE CAPITAL is allowed as against Defendant Nos. 2 and 4; the suit is decreed qua those defendants. Plaintiffs may file a fresh suit if they identify or trace other defendants.

---