CATERPILLAR INC Vs. KAILASH NICHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Suit filed by the plaintiff is for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of copyright, passing off, damages and delivery up, etc. Plaintiff is a Company incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, U.S.A. It is having its principal place of business at Illinois. U.S.A. It is the proprietor of the trade mark CATERPILLAR and CAT. The Plaintiff claims that the CATERPILLAR trade mark was first used in the U.S.A. in 1904 by Benjamin Holt and registered as Reg. No. 79056 in the U.S.A. in 1910. This registration is still valid and subsisting. Caterpillar Tractor Co. was incorporated in California, U.S.A. in 1925 by the merger of two predecessor companies, i.e. Holt and Best. In 1986, Caterpillar Tractor Co. changed its name to Caterpillar Inc. Since incorporation in 1925, the mark/name CATERPILLAR has become extremely well known around the world, primarily for the manufacture of heavy machinery for the construction, mining, road building and agricultural industries.

(2.) It is also stated in the plaint that the products manufactured by the plaintiff include Track-type tractors, Waster Disposal Arrangements, Agricultural products, Motor Grades, Excavators, Mass Excavators, Front shovels, Articulated Trucks, Wheel Tractors, Soil Compactors, Landfil Compactors, Track-Loaders. Integrated Tool Carriers, Backhoe Loaders, Wheel Loaders, Cold Planers, Asphalt Pavers, Road Reclaimers/Soil Stabilisers, Vibratory Compactors, Pneumatic Tired Compactors, Log Loaders, Feller Bunchers, Forest Machines, Track Skidders, Pipe-layers, Scrapers, Trucks, Tractors, Engines, etc.

(3.) It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiffs earth moving equipment, engines, construction and road building equipment have been regularly imported to Indiafor the last several decades. Consequently, the plaintiff s trade marks CAT/ CATERPILLAR are well known in India. The plaintiffs product were distributed through Larsen & Toubro, General Marketing and Manufacturing Company Limited and Tractois (India) Limited, in India. The plaintiff has entered into a collaboration agreement with Hindustan Motors Limited and the latter, in technical collaboration with the plaintiff, manufactures and sells engines. The plaintiff is at present selling its earth moving equipment, construction and road building equip- ment and other heavy equipment through Hindustan Power Plus Limited, Hosur.