KING POINT ENTERPRISES CO LTD Vs. ALI ASGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS per the plaint the plaintiff is a company existing under the laws of Tiawan and claims to be a leading manufacturer of hardware products including rivets, self -drilling screws, fasteners and many other items of building hardware with over two decades of manufacturing experience. The plaintiff claims to be the owner of trademarks PTA and PATTA and its logos/ devices. The trademark PATTA was adopted in the year 1987 by the plaintiff company and PTA in the year 1990. The trademarks PATTA and PTA are coined and conceived by the plaintiff. It is claimed that on account of the highly distinctive nature of the pioneering activities of the plaintiff the two trademarks PATTA and PTA have acquired excellent reputation from the very beginning and are synonymous with high standard of quality in respect of goods produced by the plaintiff company. The plaintiff is a "SGS ISO 9001:2000 certified company" and a member of "UKAS Quality Management" the sole national accreditation body recognized by United States Government that provides certification, testing, inspection and calibration services. The plaintiff company is a registered proprietor of the trademarks PATTA and PTA in many countries and was registered in India. In India trademark PATTA was registered on 1st November, 2004 in Class 6 with user claimed since 9th October, 2002. Further the trademark PTA of the plaintiff company is pending registration in India claiming user since 2002 in Class 6 since October and December, 2009. The plaintiff claims to have adopted a very distinctive packaging design in a very special manner since 2002 with the word PATTA and its logo on the outer packaging of each and every product manufactured by it, and the trademark PTA embossed on the products sold under the trademark PATTA. The packaging of the plaintiff under the trademark PATTA is an original art work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act and the plaintiff is the sole and exclusive copyright owner with exclusive right to reproduce the logo PATTA on its packaging in any form whatsoever. The plaintiff Groups website at www.patta.com is constantly updated with information and knowledge about the products range. The plaintiff in the last week of March, 2011 came to know that defendant No.1 is issuing caution notices to the customers of the plaintiff and threatening them of civil and criminal action in case they sell the goods of the plaintiff under the trademark PTA, as the defendant No.1 claims himself to be the registered owner of trademark PTA. The defendants No.1&2 were earlier the dealers of the plaintiff company in the year 2004 -05 for goods under the trademark PATTA and PTA in India and suddenly they stopped purchasing the goods for reasons best known to them. Thereafter, defendant No.1 got the trademark PTA registered in the year 2008 in his name under No. 1677459 in Class 6 by giving incorrect information. Defendant No.2 is the dealer/distributor/agent of the defendant No.1 and is selling the goods of defendant No.1. On the basis of these averments the plaintiff has, inter alia, prayed for a decree of permanent injunction agaomst the defendants restraining the defendants, their proprietors, agents, etc. from using the trademarks PATTA and PTA or its device in any manner whatsoever which is deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiffs trademark PTA so as to cause confusion or deception leading to passing off, unfair competition and dilution of plaintiffs trademark, damages and delivery of the counterfeit goods.

(2.) THE suit came up for hearing before this Court on 31 st May, 2011 when this Court by way of ex -parte ad interim injunction restrained the defendants from using the trademarks PTA and PATTA with or without device and the packaging similar to that of the plaintiff or any other deceptively similar device mark or packaging. Defendant No.1 being aggrieved by this order in view of the suppression of the material facts by the plaintiff, filed an application under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC and also filed an appeal before the Division Bench which was disposed of with the observation that this Court would consider both the applications. Thus, both the applications have been taken up for hearing.

(3.) IN the written statement defendant No.1 has claimed that the plaintiff obtained the ex -parte ad interim order dated 31st May, 2011 by concealment Defendant No.1 though acknowledged the plaintiffs of material facts. exclusive right to use the trademark PATTA, however it is stated that the plaintiff company has no such right in relation to the trademark PTA. As per the defendant the details of the various applications made by various parties in relation to the trademark PTA are as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_2949_ILRDLH23_2013.htm</FRM>