CASIO KEISANKI KABUSHIKI KAISHA Vs. RAKESH SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for injunction, damages and delivery up of the infringing products and material. The Plaintiff which is also trading as Casio Computer Company Limited, is registered in Japan. The Plaintiff also has a subsidiary company incorporated in India. The Plaintiff company was founded by Late Kashio Tadao in April, 1946 and claims to be the inventor of world's first compact, all electric calculator. The Plaintiff company is manufacturing a large number of products including calculators. The Plaintiff is the owner of the trademark CASIO which was adopted and is being used by it since 1957. The Plaintiff company has presence all over world, including in India, and had sale of yen 382154 million, 440567 million and 523528 million in the year 2001-2002, 2002-03 & 2003-04 respectively, and claims to be spending huge amounts in promotion and publicity of its products, being sold under the trademark CASIO. The trademark CASIO is registered in India in various classes including class 9 in respect of electronic computing installations and apparatus; electric and electronic apparatus for use in the calculation and furnishing of data and statistical information; apparatus for recording, tabulating, reproducing, translating or classifying data; calculating copying, billing and sorting machines, printing apparatus and parts and fittings for all the aforesaid goods; tapes prepared for use in recording data by means of electric or electronic impulse, and spools and cases for such tape; and punched cards for use in data processing, all for use in or with electronic computing installations and apparatus. The Plaintiff company had sale of Rs 19.45 crores, Rs. 19.12.crores and Rs 16.97 crores in the year 2002-2003, 2003- 2004 and 2004-2005 respectively from calculators alone in India. The market price of various models of calculators being manufactured and sold by the Plaintiff company in India is as under:

(2.) It is alleged that on receiving complaints of inferior quality calculators being available in the Indian market under the trademark CASIO, the Plaintiff company commissioned a survey in November 2004 in the New Lajpat Rai Market, Delhi, which is the wholesale market for electronic goods. The investigation in April, 2005 confirmed that Defendant No. 1, trading under the name and style of M.K. Traders, was selling calculators to the Defendant Nos. 2 to 5 under the trademark CASIO. The investigator appointed by the Plaintiff company purchased models of fx 350 MS and fx 82MS from Defendant No. 1, fx 570MS from Defendant Nos. 2 to 3, fx 100MS from Defendant No. 4 and fx 991Ms from Defendant No. 5. These calculators look like those of the Plaintiff company and were being sold under the trademark CASIO. The price at which the Defendants were selling these calculators is also a clear indicator that these calculators are counterfeit calculators. It is also claimed that the quality of this counterfeit calculator is inferior and a number of important features are missing from them. It is further claimed that the layout of the keys and the nuts of the calculators purchased from the Defendants is different from that of the genuine CASIO calculators manufactured by the Plaintiff. The calculators of the Plaintiff have batteries working at 1.5V and have only one battery whereas the calculators purchased from the Defendants have batteries which work at 3V, normally with two 1.5V batteries or one 3.0V lithium battery. In Plaintiff's calculators, key operations are stored in a buffer but such A feature is absent in the Defendants calculators.

(3.) It is also alleged that by using the Plaintiff's reputed and well known trademark CASIO with regard to the counterfeit calculators, the Defendants are blatantly passing off their products as that of the Defendants besides infringing the registered trademark of the Plaintiff company. It is also alleged that the Defendants have adopted the trademark CASIO with the mala fide intention of trading upon the tremendous reputation and goodwill which the Plaintiff's products enjoy in the market.