ALFRED DUNHILL LIMITED Vs. R P S CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to dispose of the injunction application filed by the plaintiff which was registered as I.A. No. 416/2004.

(2.) The plaintiff is one of the most well known international brands in the world for its exquisite and diversified range of luxury and fashion goods. The plaintiff's business includes inter alia designing, creation, manufacture, marketing, distribution and worldwide sale of a wide and diversified range of fashion, luxury and utility goods including those for cars, automobile accessories, men's clothing, watches and wall clocks, writing instruments, small jewellery, leather goods including leather desk sets, ladies' hand bags, wallets, leather bill folds, key fobs, stationery, and other products like fragrances, umbrellas, toiletries, travel accessories, liquor, baggage, etc. The extent of reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff has been aptly stated both in the plaint as also in the application filed by the plaintiff seeking for a temporary injunction. The plaintiff carries on the business under the trade name, trading style and trademark `DUNHILL' and accordingly the trademark `DUNHILL' of the plaintiff forms the key, dominant and essential feature of not only the plaintiff's corporate and trade identity, its goodwill and global reputation but is the only and most vital link between the plaintiff and its customers and patrons. The plaintiff also holds trademark registrations in India dating back to the year 1945 which having been renewed from time to time are still valid and subsisting. The trademark `DUNHILL' was also registered in Class 12.

(3.) It is stated in the plaint that some time in August 2003 the plaintiff at its London office received a letter dated June 24, 2003 written by defendant No.1 informing that one M/s. K.B. Engineering Works is manufacturing and marketing auto parts and cycle seats of inferior quality under the trademark `DUNHILL' of the plaintiff. On receipt of the aforesaid letter from the defendant No.1, the plaintiff instructed one of its representatives in India to verify the above information given by the defendant No.1 and also to further investigate as to how the defendants would benefit from restraining the said M/s. K.B. Engineering Works. As desired by the plaintiff, an investigation was carried out not only in the premises of M/s. K.B. Engineering Works, but also in the premises of defendants No.1 and 2, and it was found that not only the said M/s. K.B. Engineering Works were selling their products in the name of the same trademark as that of the plaintiff, but that defendants 1 and 2 were also engaged and carrying on the business of manufacturing, distributing and selling various bicycle parts including paddles, axles and cycle seats bearing the mark `SUNHILL' which was found to be deceptively and confusingly similar to the trademark of the plaintiff. The plaintiff having learnt about the aforesaid action on the part of both M/s. K.B. Engineering Works and M/s. Chawla Engineering Works, a defendant in the present suit, instituted proceedings as against both the firms. In the proceedings instituted against M/s. K.B. Engineering Works, the plaintiff succeeded in restraining the said firm from manufacturing, marketing and selling their goods under the trade name `DUNHILL' by exploiting the trade name of the plaintiff. Against the present defendants, the present suit is instituted seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passing off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff and also for a decree for payment of damages, rendition of accounts of profits, etc. Along with the aforesaid suit, an application praying for temporary injunction is also filed on which I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Counsel also drew my attention to the various documents which are placed on record in support of their respective pleas. The question, therefore, that arise for my consideration in the present application filed for seeking a temporary injunction is whether the two marks, namely, `SUNHILL' and `DUNHILL' could be said to be deceptively and confusingly similar to each other and whether an injunction of the nature as sought for could be granted.