CASTROL LTD Vs. SUBHASH AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff No. 1, M/s. Castrol Limited is a company incorporated under the laws of England, having its registered office at Bururak House, Pipers Way, Swindon Whiltshire SN3 1 RE, UK and is carrying on the business of manufacturing, processing and marketing of high grade lubricating oil products. The plaintiff No. 1 also deals in anti-freezing compounds, hydraulic fluids, brake fluids, dewatering fluids, metal working and cutting oil and chemical cleaning materials. Plaintiff No. 2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is carrying on the business of proceeding and trading of high grade automotive and industrial lubricants, greases, brake fluids, wood preservatives, metal cleaning compounds and various speciality products in India. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendants have adopted the identical pilfer proof pack and Castrol GTX EXTRA Multigrade engine oil like Annexures Y and Yl (Ex. PW 1/ 17 and Ex. PW 1/18) annexed to the plaint which is identical to the lubricant and oil manufactured and sold by the plaintiffs, i.e. Annexures X-X1 (Ex. PW 1/19 and Ex. PW 1 /20). It is further stated that the packing materials of the CASTROL CRB PLUS and CASTROL GTX EXTRA, adopted and used by the defendants have similar colour scheme, getup and layout as that of the packing material of the plaintiffs, thereby infringing the plaintiffs' trademarks and copyright. On 18th April, 1998, the plaintiffs through the Notary Public purchased the infringing material from the shop of the defendants, which is identical in packaging, colour scheme and bears the same markings as that of the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants are passing off their goods as if they were the goods of the plaintiffs. The said packing material bore the plaintiffs' name and address and it is stated that plaintiffs have not authorized the defendants to use their trademark and corporate name. The sale and figures of the plaintiffs for the last three years as stated in paragraphs 10-13 of the plaint, read as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_164_DLT131_2006Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) The defendants were served in the suit and Counsel had appeared subsequently on behalf of the defendants. The Court even issued fresh notices to the Counsel for the defendants vide order dated 18th August, 2005. Thereafter, the defendants appeared and a written statement was filed. But later on the learned Counsel appearing for the defendants sought discharge, through IA No. 1249/ 2006, which was allowed and the Counsel was discharged. Due notice was given to the defendants of the date of hearing before the Court, but as nobody appeared despite notice, they were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 2nd February, 2006. The plaintiffs were granted liberty to file evidence by way of affidavits and consequent thereto an affidavit of Mr. Murlidhar Balasubramanian, Manager, Trade Marks Operations, M/s. Castrol India Ltd., was filed wherein he had retracted the averments made in the plaint and had also clearly stated that the defendants were infringing the rights of plaintiffs, in law and in general. He has also exhibited the documents being Exs. PW 1/1 to PW 1/16 (Annexures X, X-1, Y and Y-1 annexed to the plaint).

(3.) The plaintiffs have also filed documents on record to show the infringement of their trademark. They have also filed their own carton packages (Exs. PW 1/19 and PW 1/20) as well as that of the defendants (Ex. PW 1/17 and PW 1/18). Even the visiting card of the defendants has been placed on record along with the report of Notary Public. The carton used by the defendants bear the same colour scheme, trade name, and the defendants are infringing the statutory and common riglits of the plaintiffs. Despite opportunity, they have failed to lead any evidence before the Court, as such there is no reason for the Court not to believe the version of the plaintiff. Of course, the plaintiff has failed to lead any evidence in regard to the relief of damages.