WESTON ELECTRONICS LIMITED Vs. WESTON INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit filed by Weston Electroniks Limited, hereinafter called the Plaintiff for permanent injunction and rendition of account on the ground that in 1986 the plaintiff adopted the trade mark WESTON in respect of goods of its manufacture and sale. The trade mark Weston also forms an essential and key portion of the trading style of the plaintiff company. The trade mark Weston is in continuous regular and extensive use since the year 1966. The sale of the plaintiff in respect of its goods under the trade mark Weston during the past have exceeded Rs. 70 crores. The trade mark Weston has been widely advertised through various media including insertions in newspapers; magazines, jingles on television, screening of commercial films, distribution of free gifts etc. The plaintiff has spent Rs. 3 crores on popularising the trade mark Weston. By virtue of long , established and continuous user of the trade mark Weston by the plaintiffs. coupled with vast publicity, the said trade mark Weston has acquired a unique reputation in the mind of the purchasing public and the trade so much so that the people have come about to identify, recognise and associate the said trade mark with the goods of the plaintiff. The trade mark Weston was adopted by the plaintiff in 1966 and was initially used for electronic goods. However, with the passage of time the plaintiff diversified its business activities by manufacture and sale of a large variety of consumers including bicycle and bicycle parts etc.

(2.) The plaint further states that the defendants has dishonestly and malafide adopted an identical trade mark WESTON in respect of cycles of their manufacture and sale with a view to trade upon the reputation acquired by the plaintiffs. The adoption and use of the mark WESTON by the defendant is likely to cause confusion and deception in the mind of the purchasing public and the trade. The defendant has no justification in imitating the well known trade mark WESTON of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff is suffering injury and will . ...continue to suffer injury and loss in the business in case the defendant is not restrained by way of permanent injunction from using the impugned trade mark WESTON or any other mark which may be deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff. Written statement was filed by the defendant pleading inter alia that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the fact that the goods manufactured by the defendant being cycle parts and accessories are absolutely different and distinct from the goods of the plaintiff being radios, television, etc. It is denied that the plaintiff is also manufacturing bicycle and bicycle parts as alleged.

(3.) The plaintiff is aware of the trade of the defendant since 1976 and this suit has been filed only after the lapse of six years and delay has not been explained. As such the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of this delay. The plaintiff has made false statement that they are manufacturing cycle parts under the trade name Weston. The plaintiff has never manufactured cycle or cycle parts under the trade name of Weston. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :-