KALA DEVI Vs. PARLE EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application is filed by the plaintiff, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, for restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, dealers etc. from selling the carbonated beverages under the trade mark CITRA and also from advertising the same till the final disposal of the suit.

(2.) Briefly, stated the facts of the case are that the plaintiff is carrying on the business of bottling of carbonated beverages, ready to serve and their concentrate from November 8, 1989, under the name and style of CITRO INTERNATIONAL BEVERAGE CO. Plaintiff has alleged that the trade mark CITRO/CITRO International in respect of thed aforesaid goods was adoptesometimes in the month of November, 1989, after searching from markets throughout India that there was no other concern, using the said name or similar trade mark. The plaintiff applied for the allotment of the licence under the Fruit Produces Order (FPO) in the second/third week of January, 1990, and the said licence was ultimately issued on January 31, 1990. The aforesaid trade mark CITRO/CITRO INTERNATIONAL was continuously used by the plaintiff since April 6,1990 although the actual first dealer sale was conducted only on July 7,1990. Thereafter, the product was launched with great fan fare in a public function at Town Hall on July 22, 1990. The plaintiff has submitted that wide publicity to the aforesaid trade mark by various mass media including advertisement in the newspapers, magazines, films etc.was given. The aerated beverage under the aforesaid trade mark CITRO/CITRO INTERNATIONAL is of Lime-N-Lemon flavours which has become very popular with the public.

(3.) The plaintiff has further submitted that it is unlawful for any other person/firm to use the identical/deceptively similar trade mark in respect of the carbonated beverages, ready to serve beverages and their concentrates. The plaintiff came across on May 20,1991, that the carbonated beverage under the trade mark CITRA, is manufactured by the defendants. The said beverage came into the market later than the product of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also represented to the defendants to stop the use of the trade mark CITRA, which was deceptively similar to their own trade mark known as CITRO INTERNATIONAL. It was subsequently revealed that the defendant no.2 had Filed an application on July 27,1990, in the Trade Marks office on the proposed use of CITRA. The plaintiff contends that the trade mark CITRA is deceptively similar to the trade mark CITRO/CITRO INTERNATIONAL, which is being used by the defendants in respect of the identical goods and there is likelihood of deception and confusion among the public because of the use of the deceptively similar trade mark CITRA by the defendants leading to passing off.