TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 323
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Defendant, its their directors, partners or proprietor as the case may be, their assigns in business, franchisees, licensees, distributors and agents from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in identical or similar goods/services under the infringing mark/trading name containing the mark SATYA or any other trade mark/trading name as may be identical to or deceptively similar with or containing the trade mark SATYA or any of the composite marks of the Plaintiffs containing the mark SATYA, amounting to infringement of trade mark registered in the name of the Plaintiffs. ii) Decree for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, its their directors, partners or proprietor as the case may be, their a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... relevant facts of the present case are that the three plaintiffs are legal entities incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, which commenced business operation in the year 1986 under the word mark SATYA. 5. Plaintiffs are stated to be in the business of construction, real estate, financial affairs, integrated townships, group housing and villas, hospitality, service sector, commercial complexes, IT Parks, shopping complexes, multiplexes, mall development and management and infrastructure development etc. in the National Capital Region of Delhi and Madhya Pradesh. 6. It is stated in the plaint that the mark SATYA was coined by the Promoter Directors of the plaintiffs and all the projects of the plaintiffs for the last 27 years have....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d appearing. Plaintiffs filed their evidence by way of affidavit on 07th/08th February, 2013. 14. Learned counsel for plaintiffs submits that this Court in Satya Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. vs. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd. being CS(OS) 1213/2011 on 07th February, 2013 has held that the use of the trade name/trading style "Satya Infra & Estates" amounts to infringement. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "10. Once it is found that the plaintiffs have obtained registration of the mark "SATYA'' in Classes 36, 37 & 43, the carrying on business by the defendant in the name and style of Staya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd. is clearly an infringement of the registered Trademark of which the plaintiffs are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....similar to the trademark / label/ logo "SATYA" of the plaintiffs." 15. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs and having perused the ex parte evidence as well as documents placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that plaintiffs have proved the facts stated in the plaint and have also exhibited the relevant documents in support of its case. Since the plaintiff's evidence has gone unrebutted, said evidence is accepted as true and correct. 16. This Court is also of the opinion that the triple identity test is satisfied in the present case inasmuch as the competing trade marks, products and class of purchasers are the same. 17. Further, as the essential feature of the defendant's mark that means "SATYA" is identical to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al mark in favour of the Petitioner would cause deception and confusion. The mark has been registered in favour of Respondent No.1 in respect of goods which included electrical apparatus. The Petitioner is seeking registration of an identical mark in respect of voltage stabilizers. It was sought to be urged that Respondent No.1's goods were electric cables whereas the Petitioner's were voltage stabilizers and therefore the goods were different. There can be no doubt that the electric cables are used in voltage stabilizers as well. The trade channel is essentially the same. The goods are available usually in the same place as well. Use of an identical mark in respect of the two goods is bound to cause deception and confusion in the market. T....