MRF LIMITED Vs. MUKESH CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff claims to be one of the largest and most reputed automotive tyre/tube companies in India with a network of five factories. In 1971, the plaintiff adopted' and independently used trade mark 'MRF' in a unique connected style of writing with two sets of parallel lines on both sides of the lettering The 'MRF LETTER DEVICE was conceived and designed by artists/employees of the plaintiff. Since then, it has been using"the said mark.

(2.) The trade mark has been registered in respect of various classes of goods, details of which have been provided in para 7 of the plaint. The sale figures of the goods appearing under the trade mark 'MRF ZIGMA' have been provided in para 9 which run into crores. However. 'MRF ZIGMA' has not been registered till date though application for registration was moved on 2.8.1988. It was in May, 1993 the plaintiff learnt that defendant' was manufacturing and selling electric horns under .the plaintiff's trade mark "MRF ZIGMA' and the plaintiff purchased through a notary public one carton containing 52 pieces of electric horns bearing the trade mark- 'MRF ZIGMA'. Investigations revealed that the defendant does not possess any plant or machinery or power press. It gives out contracts to local manufacturers for the supply of various parts of the horn on which specified numbers of shells are thus embossed.

(3.) The plaintiff has filed this suit as the owner of the trade mark and its prior user as act of defendant amounts to infringement of the plaintiff's trade mark as also passing off their goods as that of the plaintiff's and seeks permanent injunction against the defendant from using registered trade mark 'MRF' by use of the impugned trade mark 'MRF ZIGMA' or any other logo/mark or device deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'MRF' or 'ZIGMA'. As regards prayers (iv) to (vi), there is no Justification for allowing it as on the first date, plaintiff was granted ex-parte injunction which was duly complied with and therefore no useful purpose would be served by decreeing the suit in respect of prayers (iv) to (vi). In spite of having been served, defendant chose not to contest the suit and was consequently proceeded ex parte.