CEAT TYRES OF INDIA Vs. JAI INDUSTRIAL SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) have heard the arguments for deciding this application seeking temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit. Ad interim injunction order already stands granted In favour of the plaintiff vide order dated December 16,1987.

(2.) The planitiff is a proprietor of trade mark 'CEAT' registered under No. 204251 since August, 1961, in respect of pneumatic and solid tyres for vehicles. This trade mark 'CEAT' has been in use in India since 1951 earlier by the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff and the registration of the said trade mark still subsists in favour of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that the trade mark/word 'CEAT' is a part of the plaintiff's company trading style and is also an invented word and the plaintiff has been selling huge quantities of tyres, tubes and other material under the trade mark 'CEAT' and the plaintiff commands good reputation and goodwill in the said name and the sale of such goods runs into crores of rupees in a /year and the goods are also exported to various countries under the said trade mark 'CEAT' It was also pleaded that a huge amount has been incurred and is being incurred for carrying out advertisements in respect of the said trade mark 'CEAT' and thus, by reason of long and continuous and exclusive use the trade mark 'CEAT' is exclusively associated and identified with the plaintiff-company and its goods. It was pleaded that according to the Memorandum of Association of the plaintiff-company, the plaintiffcompany is to carry on business of manufactures of and dealers in conveyor belts, transmission belting, fan belts, 'V belts, belting system and belts/belting of all types and kinds, hoses and couplinga for materials handling and parts, components and accessories thereof. In the month of May 1987, it was found that the defendants have brought out in the market fan belts and 'V belts, under the trade mark 'CEAT' and those are made from rubber/synthetic rubber. It was alleged that the defendants by using the trade mark 'CEAT' for its fan belt and 'V belt has caused confusion and is likely to cause confusion amongst the customers that the goods being manufactured and sold by the defendants.in fact, belong to the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the goods being manufacured by the defendants are of poor quality and the sale of those goods under the trade mark 'CEAT' is likely to adversely affect the business and reputation of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the defendants have fraudulently and dishonestly used the said trade mark in respect of fan belt and 'V belt being manufactured and marketed by the defendants with a view to get enriched illegally upon the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants have contested that the suit pleading that the plaintiff has no cause of action as the plaintiff is not manufacturing and selling the 'V' belt and fan belt and the said goods are totally different -in nature and description from the goods being manufactured and sold by the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the plaintiff's goods fall in clause 21 of the IVth Trade and Merchandies Marks Rules whereas the goods of the defendants come within clause 7. It was pleaded that the defendants have been using the said trade mark 'CEAT' for,ita'V' belts and fan belts since 1979 and that -there is no likelihood of any confusion being caused by selling the goods by the defendants by using the trade mark 'CEAT' in any manner to show that the goods belong to the plaintiff.