(1.) By this order I propose to dispose of the plaintinff's application l.A.No. 4847 of 1982 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in automobile chasis coatings or automobile parts or appliances or any other allied or cognate goods under the trade mark SUPERSEAL or any other deceptively similar trade mark or from doing any other thing as is likely to lead to passing off its goods and business as the goods and business of the plaintiff. This application was tiled along with the suit. As per the averments the plaintiff Super Seals India (P) Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act of which Shri Kamal Talwar is a Director. The plaintiff is well known manufacturer and seller of automobile parts and appliances particularly oil and grease retainers, brake parts, rubber moulded components and brake hoses since decades past. The plaintiff was incorporated in the year 1960 and since then has continuously and extensively used 'SUPERSEAL' as its trade mark and as its house mark. The trade mark/house mark SUPERSEAL also forms a key and essential portion of its corporate name. This mark has acquired an enviable reputation and goodwill. The plaintiff has also incurred huge expenses on advertisements and publicity of its goods under this trade mark with the result that the purchasing public and trade identify the goods and business of the plaintiff by the trade mark SUPERSEAL.
(2.) It is alleged that recently it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant M/s. Mantri Brothers have recently started manufacturing and selling automobile chassis coatings under the mark SUPERSEAL for which the defendant has not sought and permission, licence or consent of the plaintiff. The use of mark SUPERSEAL by the defendant in the course of trade is likely to cause confusion and deception amongst the purchasing public and the trade and particularly when the goods used in relation to automobiles having the same trade channels and outlets as the goods of the plaintiff and the same class of purchasers. The plaintiff has been receiving orders and supplying books to M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd. since many years while the defendant has started holding itself out by circulars to be the supplier of SUPERSEAL to Hindustan Motors Ltd. The defendant is also holding itself out to be an extension or association or sister concern of the plaintiff company which has enhanced the possibility of confusion and deception to the detriment of plaintiff's business and reputation. The defendants have adopted and used the trade mark Superseal only with a view to earn easy illegal profits by encashing upon the vast reputation of the p'aintiff and by passing off its goods and business as the goods and business of the pla'ntiff. In spite of repeated demands the defendants have not cared to stop their business under the trade mark "SUPERSEAL" with the result that plaintiff is left with no other option but to file the present suit seeking decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants through its partners or proprietors, servants, and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or in any other manner dealing with the goods under the trade mark SUPERSEAL etc.
(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the plaintiff on his application, ad interim temporary injunction was granted by this court restraining the defendants from holding as part or associate of the plaintiff for the purpose of selling their goods or issuing circular dated 10th November, 1982 or any similar. Copy of the restraint order dated 21-12-1982 was duly served on the defendants. The defendant immediately rushed to the court and without filing the reply, opposed the continuation of the injunction already granted against the defendants. Vide order dated 19-1-1983 G.R. Luthra J. modified the ad interm injunction in these words :