ALFRED DUNHILL LIMITED Vs. GIRISH KUMAR HATANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above named plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction, passing of, rendition of accounts of profit and delivery up etc. against the defendants with the averments and allegations that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1909-1917 (U.K.), having its registered office at 30, Duke Street, St. James's, London, SW1Y 6DL, United Kingdom, and Mr.Jenny Hatton, who has signed and verified the plaint and instituted the suit is duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff. It is averred that the plaintiff is highly reputed company engaged in the business inter alia, of manufacturing and selling in different countries, a diversified range of goods including, men's clothing, silk scarves and ties, watches, gift items like wallets, small jewelry and leather goods, leather desk sets, ladies handbags, writing instruments and stationery, grooming products like fragrances, umbrellas, toilrtries, travel accessories, liquor, baggage, ceramics, glassware and a host of other products, under the trade mark DUNHILL. The plaintiff's trade mark DUNHILL has a glorious history of development, expansion and growth. The plaintiff has a virtual business empire. The range of customers and products of the plaintiff company are wide and varied and the plaintiff holds trade mark registration in India trading back to the year 1945 for various range of goods including personal accessories, scientific opperatus fully detailed in the plaint. It is stated that the plaintiff had a record of protecting its trade mark, diligently dealing and safeguarding its propriety interest in various countries where violation of said right has taken place and in one such action taken by the plaintiff in the USA, the use of the trade mark DUNHILL for Scotch Whiskey was restrained on the ground that the trade mark DUNHILL had high character and fame has to be accorded a very high degree of protection even in relation to totally unconnected goods.

(2.) It is alleged that towards March 1997 the plaintiff received a communication from an investigator that a company with a name of Dunhill Securities Ltd. was carrying on the the business of an investment company at Mumbai, India and it was reported that they were using the trade mark DUNHILL as a part of their corporate name and trading style. Inasmuch as the said trade mark appears on their visiting cards, invoices, banners and swatches. The adoption of such trade mark by the defendants is with a view to mis- represent that their business either originated from the plaintiff or are endorsed or approved by them. The use of highly distinctive and well known trade mark DUNHILL in relation to defendant's business is bound and lead to immense confusion and deception in defendants business to that of the plaintiff. As a result the plaintiff is likely to suffer inter alia loss of reputation and image and loss of customers. Accordingly the plaintiff has prayed the following reliefs:

(3.) On an application moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC dated 26.3.98, this Court passed an injunction order restraining the defendant, their officers, servants, agents and representatives from advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in or in any other manner using the trade mark DUNHILL or any other mark identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark DUNHILL in relation to business or as a part of the trade name or corporate name, thereby amounting to passing off of the defendant's goods as those of the plaintiff.