TATA SONS LIMITED Vs. ATUL TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from infringing the registered trademark of plaintiff, passing off, damages, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. Plaintiff has filed this suit through its constituted attorney Mr. V. Gurumoorthi.

(2.) It is alleged that plaintiff was established in the year 1917 as a body corporate. Plaintiff is a principal investment holding company of the "Tata Group", which is India's oldest, largest and best known conglomerate with turnover of over Rs. 251,543.00 crores during the financial year 2007-08. Plaintiff is one of India's most trusted business houses and the name as well as trademark "TATA", which is derived from the surname of the founder Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata, is a household name synonymous with excellence in almost every field of business activity. Since its inception in the year 1917, plaintiff has been continuously and consistently using the trademark and trade name "TATA" which is a rare patronymic name possessing the distinctiveness of an invented word for its own business activities and those of companies promoted by it. The use of trademark and trade name "TATA" by the plaintiff's predecessors in business relates back to 1868. The trade name "TATA" has consistently been associated with conglomeration of companies forming the "TATA Group", colloquially also referred to as the "House of TATA", which consists over hundred companies of which over 50 companies use mark "TATA" as key and essential part of their corporate name.

(3.) Plaintiff, being proprietor of trademark "TATA", enjoys exclusive rights in the said trademark and is entitled to take action against unauthorized use thereof by any third party for its goods or services. Plaintiff has international presence. Plaintiff as well as its sister concerns are proprietors of several trademarks comprising of or containing the word "TATA", which have been registered under Classes 3 and 9. Details of the registration have been mentioned in para 8 of the plaint.