CASTROL LTD Vs. GUPTA TRADING CO.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court has today dismissed the second defendantï¿ 1/2s application for recall of the previous order dated 4.2.2008. The said defendantï¿ 1/2s written statement has, therefore, not been taken on the record.

(2.) THE plaintiffs seek a decree for permanent injunction and other consequential reliefs including damages against the defendants from using the trademark Super TT, Activ and the hockey device, and the ï¿ 1/2motor cycle riderï¿ 1/2 device, of which the plaintiffs claim to be trademark owners. It is urged that the plaintiffs are registered trademark proprietors of the word mark Activ and that in respect of the hockey device used on the label, the plaintiff is a trademark owner having continuously used it since 1988. The suit averments are to the effect that an application for trademark registration in Clause-4 in respect of said mark in the device is pending.

(3.) IT is contended that the plaintiffs became aware sometime in November, 2009 that the defendants were manufacturing and marketing engine oils for scooters, motor cycles and other vehicles using packing material similar to that packaged by the plaintiffs and used by them i.e. in plastic containers and were also marketing them under the brand ï¿ 1/2Activï¿ 1/2. The plaintiffs have produced copies of the defendantsï¿ 1/2 containers with the visual depiction of the ACTIV mark as well as the hockey device at page No.24 of the list of documents filed. The plaintiffs contrast this with the photographs of its mark produced at pages 16-20 of the list of documents to show the visual similarity, capable of confusing unwary customers into believing that the goods of the defendants in fact emanate from the plaintiffs.