LAWS(DLH)-2011-6-75

GREAVES COTTON LIMITED Vs. MOHAMMAD RAFI

Decided On June 03, 2011
GREAVES COTTON LIMITED Appellant
V/S
MOHAMMAD RAFI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for permanent & mandatory injunction, damages, rendition of accounts and delivering up of infringing material. The plaintiff company is engaged in the manufacture of a wide range of industrial products including diesel engines, generating sets, agro equipments, construction equipments and road construction equipments. It is claimed that the word/mark GREAVES? is an essential and prominent feature of plaintiff?s trade name, corporate name and business style and the trademark GREAVES? is the surname of the founder of the plaintiff?s predecessor GREAVES COTTON AND COMPANY LIMITED?. Other groups companies of the plaintiff are Greaves Leasing Finance Limited, Greaves Midwest Engineering Company Limited, Crompton Greaves Limited, Dee Greaves Limited, Piaggio Greaves Vehicles Limited and Greaves Farymann Diesel GMBH. It is also alleged that GREAVES? is the principal trademark of the plaintiff company and is exclusively associated with the products, business and activities of the plaintiff company and its subsidiary/associate companies. The plaintiff company holds the following registrations in its favour: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2391_ILRDLH21_2011_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The plaintiff company has set out the sales figures of pumps of different descriptions during the period 2003 to 2007 as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2391_ILRDLH21_2011_2.html</FRM>

(3.) It is alleged that defendant No.1 who is the proprietor of defendant No.2, made an application for registration of the trademark GREAVES INDIA? claiming use of aforesaid mark since 1.12.2004 in respect of self priming pump, monobloc pump, jet pump, shallow well pump, coupled pump, high head coupled pump, diesel pump, which are exactly of the same type as the pumps of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company sent a legal notice dated 26.12.2007 to the defendant No.1 calling upon it to cease and desist from using the aforesaid mark. In his reply, the defendant claimed to have acquired popularity and publicity through use since 1.12.2004.