EXECUTIVE ACCESS INDIA PVT LTD Vs. ANAND MENON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC, seeking exemption from filing the original and or/fair typed copies of the dim documents at this stage.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that it is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 incorporated in the year 1995 and since then it has been carrying on its business under the corporate name and trading style "EXECUTIVE ACCESS" and the ren logo to provide head-hunting/executive search/placement services to clients. The plaintiff has secured trademark registration and also has a pending trademark application in respect of the trademark/service mark EXECUTIVE ACCESS and the ren logo. The details regarding the registration and the pending trademark application are given in para 13 of the plaint. It is stated by the plaintiff that the executive search services are used by its client companies to find and hire high level executives who are most suited to a stated job profile. Since June 2004, the plaintiff has been operating its website which gives comprehensive information about the operation management and the service rendered by the plaintiff company.

(3.) Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learned Senior counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant No. 1, Mr. Anand Menon, a former employee of the plaintiff company is the Managing Director of defendant No. 2, EAL Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. that is carrying on business identical to that of the plaintiff, under the name EAL Search and claims to be an affiliate of Executive Access Limited, Hong Kong i.e. defendant No. 3 herein. According to the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 and employees of defendant Nos. 2 and 3, during their conversations with prospective customers misrepresent themselves to be the employees of the plaintiff. The defendants, in the course of trade as well as for the purpose of advertising and promoting their services in India, are using the registered trademark "EXECUTIVE ACCESS" owned in India by the plaintiff. Further, the defendants are using the website to divert the India based queries, consumer/customer "web traffic", to defendant No. 3's Hong Kong based website misrepresenting itself as Executive Access in India, territorial rights of which, rest solely with the plaintiff.