AKTIEBOLAGET VOLVO Vs. KISHORE PUROHIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, grant of damages and delivering up of infringing material. The plaintiffs, are three separate companies, all registered in Sweden and the plaint has been signed and verified and suit instituted by their attorney Mr. J.K. Sharma. It is alleged in the plaint that plaintiff No. 1 Aktiebolaget Volvo commenced the business of assembling cars in April 1927 and of trucks in the year 1928. Since the business of Volvo Group of Companies grew substantially,, plaintiff No. 1 on 26th February 1999, by way of a Global Deed of Assignment, assigned its right, title and interest in the word Volvo along with its goodwill to plaintiff No. 2. This was followed by a supplementary deed of assignment dated 23rd March 2001 so as to comply with the requirement of Indian Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. On 28th February 1999 vide Global License Agreement, plaintiff No. 2 licensed plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 to use the aforesaid mark for their respective business.

(2.) It is alleged that plaintiff No. 3 occupies a prominent position as a car producer in the segment in which it produces cars, whereas plaintiff No. 1 is amongst the world leaders in heavy commercial vehicles such as trucks, buses and construction equipments, drive systems for marine and industrial applications, aircraft engines and space propulsion components. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 3 and other companies of Volvo TM Companies manufacture goods and provide related services throughout the world under the trademark Volvo. It is also alleged that the plaintiffs have also created a range of Volvo Merchandise goods to support their core business and enhance the brand and provide opportunities for consumer targeted activities. The trademark Volvo has, therefore, been used in relation to belts, buckles, bags, watches, pens, clothing and a range of otheir accessories.

(3.) Volvo is stated to be a rate Latin word which plaintiff No. 1 had adopted for its business and it is alleged that it has all the trappings of an invented mark. It is further alleged that Volvo does not convey anything in its ordinary significance and it is neither a geographical indication nor a surname and its mark has now come to be associated exclusively ancl solely with the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claims tremendous goodwill and reputation in the mark Volvo and had worldwide sale figures of Swedish Kroner 183,(625 Million, 212,936 Million and 228,512 Million in the years 1997, 1998 and 1999,, respectively. It is further alleged that the Volvo is advertised and published as a trademark as) well as a corporate name in the various magazines, journals including Times Magazine and financial Times of London and also in Indian newspapers suclb. as Hindustan Times, Times of India and Hindu. The plaintiffs claimed to have spent Swedis?h Kroner 6594 Million, 5853 Million and 7415 Million in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000, respectively on publicity of its mar^s and products. It is also alleged that after 1991, five subsidiary companies have been established by the plaintiffs in India. Later all the five subsidiaries were consolidated into one company Volvo India Private Limited.