SONY KABUSHIKI KAISHA Vs. SONY CERAMICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE consent decree dated 16.01.2006, the judgment debtors were restrained from using the word Sony or any other word deceptively and/or confusingly similar to the trademark Sony, on the goods manufactured and marketed by them or in relation to their business. The settlement between the parties was recorded in IA No. 482/2006. The Judgment Debtors were granted two and a half months from the date of decree to exhaust the existing stock. The case of the decree holder is that the judgment debtor committed breach of the aforesaid consent decree by JD No.2 selling tiles bearing the mark Sony to its investigator on 18.08.2006 and by displaying the mark 'Sony' and the logo 'S' on the signboard and the gate of the of the premises of JD No.1.

(2.) THE investigator of the decree holder has, in his affidavit way of evidence, stated that he was working with Omnisight Services Private Limited which, inter alia, conducts intellectual property inquires and market research on behalf of its clients, including the decree holder and in the second week of August, 2006, he was instructed on behalf of the decree holder to ascertain whether the judgment debtors, namely, M/s Sony Cermics and M/s S. Kumar Traders were using the trademark Sony on the goods manufactured/marketed/distributed and offered for sale by them. He accordingly conducted investigation in the third week of August, 2006. According to him, on entering the premises of JD No. 2, his attention was drawn to ceramic tiles of various designs and sizes carrying sticker with Sony, printed on them. He also noticed boxes with Sony displayed amongst other boxes in the said premises. According to the witness, JD No. 2 Sanjay, who is the owner of M/s S. Kumar Traders, met him and personally showed Sony printed tiles to him. He accordingly produced two boxes of Sony printed tiles vide invoice Ex. A-3. He has further stated that on arriving at Himmatnagar, Gujarat en route to the JD No. 1, he saw a signage with Sony on it at a distance of about one kilometer from the premises of JD No. 1. The photograph of the said signage is Ex.A-4. He has also stated that on approaching the premises of JD No.1, he saw Sony along with a logo S as used by the decree holder painted on the main gate. The photograph of the said gate is annexure A-5 to his affidavit.

(3.) ANNEXURE -3 to the affidavit of the Investigator of the decree holder is a copy of the invoice dated 18th August, 2006 issued by judgment debtor No.2 ­ M/s. S.Kumar Traders for sale of two boxes of tiles. According to the witness of the decree holder, Annexure A- 1 is the photograph of the box which was lying in the premises of judgment debtor No.2 at the time he visited the said premises. Annexure A-2 to his affidavit is the photograph of the tile having the logo 'S' and the name Soni printed on its pack. I see no reason to disbelieve the unrebutted deposition of Mr. Jha to the effect that Mr. Sanjay, the proprietor of judgment debtor No.2 had met in the shop and had personally shown to him Sony branded tiles. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve his deposition that he had purchased two boxes of Sony brand tiles from Mr. Sanjay proprietor of Judgment Debtor No.2. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the judgment debtors that no brand name of the tile has been noted on the invoice Annexure 'A-3'. It has come in the affidavit of Mr. Jha that Mr. Sanjay deliberately did not mention the name Sony on the invoice. Considering the fact that a consent decree had been passed restraining the judgment debtors from selling any product under the name Sony, it is quite natural that while selling tiles bearing the name/mark Sony, judgment debtor No.2 would not write the name of the brand in the invoice issued by him. He knows that issuing an invoice for sale of tiles under the name 'Sony' would be a documentary proof of his having disobeyed the consent decree passed by this Court and the minimum precaution, which a person seeking to violate the decree would take is not to write the brand name of the products on the invoices. It would be pertinent to note here that the invoice does not bear any brand name at all. Thus, it is not as if the invoice bears a brand other than 'Sony'. The goods were described only as glaze tiles without specifying any brand, in the invoices. Therefore, the deposition of the investigator of the Decree Holder appears quite plausible and trustworthy. In terms of the consent decree, the judgment debtors, were given two and a half months from the date of the decree to liquidate the existing stocks. The decree having been passed on 16.01.2006, the period of two and a half months expired on 31.03.2006. The tiles, as per Investigator of the Decree Holder were sold much later on 18.8.2006. I am, therefore, satisfied that the Judgment Debtor No.2 disobeyed the consent decree of injunction passed by this Court on 16.01.2006 by selling the tiles bearing the trademark/name 'Sony', on 18.8.2006.