TATA OIL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED Vs. WIPRO LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I propose to dispose of the plaintiff's application I. A. 4131/85, under 0. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code. praying for the issuance of an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants, their servants and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising directly or indirectly dealing in toilets soaps, detergents or any other soaps under the trade mark BUBBLES or any other mark that may be identical and/or deceptively similar with the plaintiffs trade mark DUBBLE, amounting to infringement of the plaintiffs registered trade mark No. 323240 or from doing any other thing as is likely to lead to confusion and deception amounting to passing off of the defendants' goods and business as those of the plaintiff. This application was filed along with the main suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, rendition of accounts of profits, etc., against the defendants.

(2.) As per the plaintiff 's case, Tata Oil Mills Company Ltd. is carrying on an old and established business for decades past, in the manufacture and sale of, inter alia, washing soaps, detergents, toilet soaps and toilet preparations including hair oik shampoos and eau de cologne. In the year 1977 the plaintiff adopted a distinctive trade mark DUBBLE inter alia in respect of soaps and detergents of its manufacture and sale. This trade mark is in continuous, regular and extensive use by the plaintiff since March 1981. The trade mark DUBBLE is also registered under the provisions of the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act which registration stands renewed till 1991 and is conclusively valid being more than 7 years old. By virtue of the prior adoption, the plaintiff has an exclusive right to the use of the said trade mark. The plaintiffs goods under this trade mark have acquired a unique reputation, so much so that the purchasing public and the trade have come about to identify and recognise the said goods by the trade mark DUBBLE. The plaintiffs sales of DUBBLE detergent cakes have been over Rs. 2,931 lakhs for the period 1980-81 to 1983-84. The plaintiff has further spent a sum of Rs. 208 lakhs on advertisement, sales promotional and consumer schemes relating to DUBBLE detergent cakes for the same period.

(3.) Defendant No. 1, M/s. Wipro Limited, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of toilet soaps among other products. Defendant" No. 2, M/s. Gainda Mal Hem Raj, Connaught Place, New Delhi, is the distributor of defendant No. 1 's goods in Delhi. It has recently come to the knowledge of the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 had adopted the trade mark of BUBBLE for its toilets soaps. This trade mark BUBBLE is phonetically as well as. visually similar with the plaintiffs trade mark BBLE. The similarity between the two marks is so great that it is bound to cause confusion and deception amongst the purchasing public and the trade and will lead to passing off defendant No. 1's goods and business as those of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 by use of the trade mark BUBBLES in relation to soap is infringing registered trade mark No. 323240 of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 1 is further likely to represent its soap, as the soap of the plaintiff and the use of the trade mark BUBBLES is circulated to deceive and cause confusion resulting in passing off of the defendants' goods and business, as the goods and the business of the plaintiff. While adopting the trade mark BUBBLE defendants have tried to come closest to the plaintiffs trade mark DUBBLE. Even the letter 'B' is visually similar in its appearance to the letter 'D'. The defendants have adopted the mark BUBBLES for toilet soap in spite of knowing the reputation of the plaintiffs trade mark DUBBLE in respect of cognate goods. The defendants have adopted the trade mark BUBBLES solely with the intention of earning easy illegal profits by infringing the registered trade mark of the plaintiff and passing off their goods and business as those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is suffering immense loss in its business as well as its reputation by the illegal trade activities of the defendants.