MICRONIX INDIA Vs. J R KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code). In this application it has been prayed that the defendant, its servants, agents, dealers, representatives and all other persons on its behalf may be restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in electrical and electronic apparatus and instruments, TV boosters, TV tuners and all other electrical goods under the trade name MICRO TELEMATIX, trade mark MICROTEL and logo "M" and cartons of the booster and/or any other trade name, trade mark and cartons and/or deceptively similar to the trade name, trade mark and cartons of the plaintiff and from passing off their goods and business as those of the plaintiff. Notice of his application was given to the defendant. The defendants in their reply to this application have controverted the allegations made in the application.

(2.) Brief stated, the facts of the case are that the defendant was one of the partners of the plaintiff firm vide partnership deed dated 21st September, 1977. By mutual consent the said partnership came to an end with effect from 14th February, 1992 in terms of a compromise deed filed in Suit No. 484/91 pending in the court of Shri K.S. Paul, Sub Judge, Delhi and the said suit was decreed. As a result of the said decree based on the compromise, the defendant retired from the partnership with effect from 14th February, 1992 and the continuing partners became the subsequent proprietors.

(3.) The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade/mark/label MICRONIX under No. 463330 dated 19th November, 1986 in respect of electrical, electronics apparatus and instrument, TV tuners, TV boosters, TV vision, IF, parts and fittings. As a result of the compromise mentioned hereinabove, the said trade mark/label became the exclusive property of the continuing partners of the plaintiff firm. In clause (g) of the compromise it has been specifically stated that the defendant undertook not to make any copy or use of the registered patent design or trade mark of the plaintiff firm hereinafter.