HONDA MOTORS COMPANY LIMITED Vs. CHARANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is a company incorporated in Japan. The plaintiff's line of operation includes manufacture and sale of motorcycles, motor cars, power equipments etc. It also provides financial services. It is pleaded that the company is manufacturing and marketing its products all over the world under the trade mark HONDA, which is of international repute. It is one of the largest producers of automobiles in the world and has over 100 production facilities in 39 countries of the world including India and its products bearing the mark HONDA are sold in more than 160 countries. The plaintiff is known for its innovative techniques and is committed to produce quality products. It takes keen interest in Promoting clean environment, low emission and low fuel consumption. These coupled with traffic safety requirements oF international standard has made it one of the most prominent and responsible multinational corporations in the world. It has ecquired international dimensions. It started exporting its motorcycles under the mark HONDA to U.S.A. as early as in the year 1959. Later on it also developed the manufacturing operations in U.S.A. for motor cars. A number of manufacturing units were also" developed in various countries of Europe. It started retailing and exporting of motorcycles in various countries oF Asia since late Fifties. It is averred that it has been using the trade mark HONDA For its products in India since 1957. Its quality products and marketing the same under the mark HONDA hae helped it to achieve a very high turn over. The plaintiff in para No.7 of the plaint has given a statement showing the net sales and other operating revenues of the company between the years 1974 and 1997. On account oF its initial adoption and its extensive use, the mark HONDA became exclusively, associated with the plaintiff in the eyes of the consumers. It, in fact, became a house mark of the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff's products bearing the mark HONDA are being advertised in well known journals having international circulation. e.g.Asia Inc., Asia Week, Forbes etc. Its products bearing the mark HONDA have also been advertised in many international magazines including "National Geographic" having considerable circulation in India. It also entered into collaboration arrangements in India with Indian companies. In 1983, it entered into a Joint venture with Hero Cycles. Pvt.Ltd., a company belonging to Punjab based Muhjal Group for manufacturing motorcycles. The joint venture company. "Hero Honda Motors Limited" Was permitted to use the mark HERO .HONDA. Another Joint venture company was promoted in the year. 1985 named Shriram Honda Power Equipment Ltd., presently known as Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. This company is engaged in the manufacturing of generator sets The mark "HONDA" Was allowed by the plaintiff to be used as part of the trade mark of the said company "SHRIRAM HONDA". Lately in the year 1997, the plaintiff promoted another company Honda Siel Cars India Ltd., which is engaged in the manufacture and sale of motor cars under the house mark HONDA and the sub-brand CITY The plaintiff's cars otherwise are being sold in India for the last many decades. The plaintiff has also obtained several registrations of the trade mark HONDA in India in various, classes under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act,1958. It has also applied for registration of the trad mark HONDA in all the classes contained in 4th Schedule to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Rules,1959. The plaintiff's case is that the goodwill and reputation of its mark HONDA, has made, the said mark distinctive of the plaintiff being a symbol of high quality products.

(2.) In April,1991, the plaintiff came*to know from the Trade Marks Journal dated 1st April,1991 that an, application for registration of trade , mark HONDA in respect of pressure cookers.(non-electric) had been filed in the name of M/s Steel India, defendant No.5. the plaintiff opposed the said application by taking out opposition proceedings before the Registrar, Trade Marks. Vide a detailed order dated 19th october,1995, the Registrar allowed the opposition application of the plaintiff and rejected the application for registration of the defendants. The said order is alleged to have become final against the defendants as no appeal was preferred: The plaintiff assumed that after the rejection of their application, the defendants had discontinued the use of mark HONDA on their goods. The plaintiff was, however, shocked to see an advertisement in the Trade Mark Journal in the year 1999 about defendants moving another application for registration of trade mark HONDA in class 21. That application is being contested by filing opposition before the Registrar. When the plaintiff came to know that the defendants were Still using the trade mark HONDA in respect of their goods, a cease and desist notice was served on them to which they did not. reply. Left with no option, the plaintiff filed the present suit for permanent injunction, passing off, rendition of accounts and delivery up etc., against the defendants alleging that the defendants, by using the mark HONDA in respect of their goods pressure cookers, are passing off the same as the goods of the plaintiff and encashing upon the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation attached to its mark HONDA. The plaintiff has prayed For restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, stockists and all other persons acting on their behalf, from using the trade mark HONDA in respect of pressure cookers or other goods or any other. allied and cognate goods or any other trade mark/mark identical with or deceptively similar to the trade mark HONDA of the plaintiff and in any manner passing of their goods as that of the plaintiff. On the same lines, interim injunction is prayed against the defendants by moving an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. No. ex-parte ad-interim injunction was granted as the defendants had filed a caveat. Accordingly,they were put to notice. It is this application, which I propose to dispose of by this order.

(3.) The names of defendants 2, 3 and 4 were deleted at the request of the learned counsel for the plaintiff as defendant No.5, M/s Steel India, was stated to be the proprietorship concern of defendant No.1.