ELECTRONIC DESIGN ASSOCIATES Vs. HI POINT SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF has filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the infringement of its trade mark by the defendant and has claimed other reliefs also. The present application is under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, selling or offering for sale voltage stabliser under the mark SONAX or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to said mark SONAX.

(2.) PLAINTIFF claims to be partnership firm constituted by a deed of partnership dated 2nd January, 1978 and is claimed to be a registered partnership. There are three partners, namely, Mr. N. K. Malhotra, Mr. R. K. Saini and Mr. Vinod Puri. The earlier partnership in the name of the plaintiff was constituted by a deed of partnership dated 8th July, 1974 between Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Ms. Asha Puri (wife of Mr. Vinod Puri), Mr. R. K. Saini and Mr. Thomes C. J. It is, however, not necessary to go into further details as to how earlier partnership dissolved and the present one constituted as it is admitted case of the parties that the plaintiff holds registration of the trade mark SONAX under No. 343018 as on 24th November, 1978 and that the said registration is valid, subsisting and in full legal force. Thus, it is claimed that registration of trade mark SONAX under the provisions of The Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') confers an exclusive right on the plantiff to use the said mark to the exclusion of others. Then the plaintiff says that this mark has come to be associated with its name in the market. Presently there are disputes between the three partners constituting the plaintiff firm and in fact this led to Mr. Vinod Puri issuing a warning notice to all concerned that there are disputes among the partners and the plaintiff firm was likely to be dissolved.