CASTROL LIMITED Vs. RAMESH RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS have filed this suit against the defendants for passing of a decree of injunction in relation to the infringement of trademark and copyright, rendition of accounts and delivery of all the infringing material.

(2.) IT is alleged in the plaint that plaintiff no.1 Castrol Ltd. is a company incorporated under the laws of England. Plaintiff No.1, interalia, is involved in manufacture, processing, and marketing of high grade lubricating oil products in United Kingdom and several other countries in the world. Plaintiff No.1 commenced its activities in India in the year 1919 in its then name C.C. Wakefield & Co. Ltd which was changed to CASTROL LTD in 1960. On 31st May, 1979, plaintiff No.2, CASTROL INDIA LTD was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Technopolis Knowledge Park, Mahakali Caves Road, Chakala, Andheri (East), Mumbai and regional office at 5th Floor, East Towers, NBCC Place, Pragati Vihar, Bhishma Pitamah Marg, New Delhi 110003 with the object of processing and marketing high grade automotive and industrial lubricants and specialty products in India. Plaintiffs have been carrying on large scale business which, interalia, includes processing of and trading in high grade automotive and industrial lubricants, greases, brake fluids, wood preservatives, metal cleaning compounds, hydraulic fluids, anti-freezing compounds etc.

(3.) IN the month of September 1989, plaintiffs came to know that defendant no.1, ex-employee of plaintiff no.2, was marketing and selling spurious oil and brake fluid under the trade mark CASTROL, CASTROL GTX EXTRA and CASTROL UNIVERSAL BREAK FLUID. Defendant no.1 stocks the spurious oils under the above said trademarks in his godown. It is alleged in the plaint that Defendant nos. 1 & 2 are getting filled and packed the said spurious oil through defendant nos.3 to 5 and one Mr. Ramesh Gupta. The trademark used by the defendants is identical to that of the plaintiffs. Even the packaging material used by the defendants is identical to that of the plaintiff, inasmuch as, the color scheme, get up, layout and arrangement of the features is also same. Defendants have not been authorized by the plaintiffs to market and sell any of its products or to use its trademark.