1999 (9) TMI 980

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... on the last known address. As there was no appearance on behalf of Defendant it was proceeded ex parte and the plaintiff was permitted to lead evidence by way of affidavits. This has been done. 2. The case set out in the plaint is that the plaintiff is carrying out its business in manufacturing of house-hold articles, kitchenware, domestic appliances and electric and electrical goods bearing the trade mark "MAHARAJA" since 1978. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark `Maharaja' and has been using it in a particular characteristic style in a distinctive logo script which constitutes an original artistic work within the meaning of Section 2 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff is the owner of the copyright t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Harish Kumar, a partner of the plaintiff, in which he has traversed and affirmed the statements made in the plaint. 4. In the course of arguments the learned counsel for the plaintiff reiterated the averments made in the plaint and proved through the affidavit of its partner. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied on the decisions of this Court rendered in Kedar Nath Vs . Monga Perfumery & Flour Mills, AIR1974Delhi12 and Glaxo Operations UK Ltd. Middlesex (England), and Others Vs . Smart Pharmaceuticals, Kanpur: AIR1984Delhi265 . 5. In Kedar Nath's case (supra) the defendant's carton was found to be identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff, with the variation that the prefix "Vijay" in small type h....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arned counsel for the plaintiff would also propel me to hold that this action of the Defendant is a deliberate one with the intention of causing confusion in the minds of the public so that they may be induced to purchase the Defendant's products thinking them to be those of the plaintiff. 8. In this analysis I decree the suit of the plaintiff and inject and restrain the Defendant, its servants, agents from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale, or advertising directly or indirectly, its Mixer grinders for kitchen use under the trade mark MAHARAJA or any other identical or deceptively similar mark. The Defendant, its servants, agents are also permanently injuncted and restrained from selling or advertising directly or indirect....