TINNA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. INTERNATIONAL RUBBER INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to dispose of the plaintiff's application 1A 3602/83 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Civil procedure Code for the grant of ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants agents, representatives and dealers from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale and/or otherwise directly or indirectly dealing in rubber sheets for the soles of footwears and other allied goods under the trade mark TANY and/or any other mark which may be identical to or deceptively similar to the trade mark TINNA of the plaintiff.

(2.) In order to dispose of this application few salient features of the plaintiff suit have to be kept in mind. The plaintiffs are engaged in the manufacture and sale of "rubber sheets for the soles of footwear, banwar, canvas shoes and footwears. ; that the plaintiffs are the proprietor of the trade mark TINNA (Label) with registration No. 326557 which mark is being used by the plaintiffs continuously and uninterruptedly; that by virtue of the agreement dated 1.1. 1982, the registered proprietor of this trade mark, have assigned the same along with the goodwill of the business to M/s. Tinna Enterprises Private Ltd. to the plainiff herein; that the plaintiff company and its predecessor are applying a distinctive trade mark TINNA in English as well as in Hindi on their product since 1974: that by virtue of the above registration and by virtue of long and established user, the plaintiffs have acquired an exclusive right to the use of the trade mark TINNA; that the trade mark TINNA forms a key portion of the plaintiffs fading style M/s. Tinna Enterprises Private Ltd.; that the sales of the aforesaid goods of the plaintiffs runs in several lakhs of rupees; that the plaintiffs and its predecessor have given wide publicity to their trade mark T1NNA through various advertising media as a result of which the goods under the trade mark TINNA connotes and denotes the goods and merchandise of the plaintiffs' goods and none else.

(3.) The defendants have recently started the manufacture and sale of identical goods i.e. "rubber sheets for the soles of footwears" under the identical and/or deceptively similar trade mark TANY, that the use and adoption of the trade mark TANY by the defendant is a clear and flagrant violation of the legal vested rights of the plaintiffs in their well known and established trade mark TINNA, that the defendants' trade mark is identical and/or deceptively similar phonetically, visually and structurally to the registered trade mark TINNA of the plaintiffs, which are being used in respect of the identical goods; that the defendants have deliberately adopted the plaintiff's trade mark with a dishonest and malafide intention to earn profits by illegal manners to which they are not entitled; that the purchasers of the said goods arc the illetrate shoemakers and workers which demand and recognise the plaintiffs' product by the trade mark/label; that the confusion and deception is inevitable among the public and the trade, due to close and deceptive similarity of the trade mark TINNA. TANY that the defendants are thus guilty of infringement and passing off their inferior and sub-standard product as and for the quality products of the plaintiff.