2013 (3) TMI 777

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e appeared for the defendants on 27.02.2013 for which date the summons were served. 5. None appears for the defendants today. 6. The defendants are proceeded against ex parte. 7. I have in judgment dated 30.01.2013 in CS(OS) No.559/2010 titled Indian Performing Rights Society Vs. Gauhati Town Club and for the reasons set out therein, already held that in suits of the nature as the present suit is, no purpose is served by directing ex parte evidence to be led and upon the defendant choosing not to contest, the suit itself can be disposed of on the basis of affidavit accompanying the plaint and the documents filed therewith. 8. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit for restraining the defendant company from using the domain and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....its trade and domain name will vest an unfair advantage in the defendant, detrimental to the distinctive character and repute of the registered Trademark of the plaintiffs. 10. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the plaintiff No.1 Agilent Technologies, Inc., USA is the registered proprietor of the Trademark AGILENT in many countries of the world for a variety of goods and services including in Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, European Union (CTM), Federation of Russia, Ghana, Hong Kong, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, UAE, Unite....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... AGILENT is a well known Trademark as defined in Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act and entitled to protection. 11. On the basis of the documents in support of the aforesaid, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs Trademark AGILENT qualifies as a ?Well Known Trademark?. 12. The counsel for the plaintiffs has in this regard also drawn attention to Smt. S. Charat Ram Vs. M/s Usha Rectifier MANU/DE/0301/1996, Apple Computer Inc. Vs. Apple Leasing and Industries 1992 (1) Arbitration Law Reporter 93, Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft Vs. Hybo Hindustan AIR 1994 Delhi 239, N.R. Dongre Vs. Whirlpool Corporation (1996) 5 SCC 714 and the recent dicta dated 09.07.2012, though on an application for interim relief but discussing the entire case law on the subj....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ation for registration, of any other person under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 16. I am therefore of the view that the plaintiffs have made out a case for injuncting the defendant from carrying on business in the name of Agilent Construction Pvt. Ltd. and from using the domain name www.agilentconstruction.com and / or from using the plaintiffs Trademark / Corporate name AGILENT or any other mark deceptively similar thereto. 17. However, since the defendant would be required to rectify its name by following the prescribed procedure and which process may take some time, it is deemed expedient to grant three months time to the defendant and to make the injunction operative after the said time. 18. A decree for permanent injunction is ac....