SHRI ATUL RAWAL Vs. S B EQUIPMENTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "cpc"), the plaintiff seeks an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, marketing, advertising or in any manner whatsoever using the trademarks "super bright", "super BRIGHT EL", "super BRIGHT EL-C", "super BRIGHT EL-81", "super bright HD ULTRA" and "super BRIGHT Bleach" or any other trademark which is deceptively similar or confusingly similar to the above trademarks. It is claimed by the plaintiff that it is the proprietor of the said trademarks. The suit has been filed on the allegation that the defendant is passing off its goods as those of the goods of the plaintiff by utilising the aforesaid trademarks for its goods.

(2.) THE plaintiff is in the business of manufacturing and selling various detergent products. It is the plaintiff's case that it has developed several unique and novel detergent products solely on the basis of its own research and development and all these products have been marketed and sold under the trademark "super BRIGHT" followed by suffixes, such as EL, EL-C, EL-81, HD ultra, etc. to identify specific detergent products. It is alleged that the trademark "super BRIGHT" was first coined and adopted by the plaintiff's sister concern M/s Asian Laboratories in the year 1978 and was put to use first in point in India in respect of detergent chemicals. It is stated that sales under the aforesaid trademarks continued to grow and in the year 1990, by reason of a family settlement, the use of the said trademark was transferred to the plaintiff who has since been manufacturing and marketing its detergent chemicals under the trademark "super BRIGHT". On the basis of material placed before this court at time of hearing of this application, it can be granted to the plaintiff that, prima facie, the plaintiff has been using the mark "super BRIGHT" since 1990 in respect of its detergents. The documents on record indicate sales of its "super BRIGHT" detergents to various hotels and hospitals, including Hotel le Meridian, Taj Mahal Hotel, Grand Intercontinental Hotel, Escorts Heart institute, Moolchand Hospital, etc. right through the early 1990s till date.

(3.) THE plaintiff has averred in its plaint that in the year 1999, the plaintiff developed two different product ranges with variation of chemical components and formulae as per the demand of its clients and marketed the products as "super bright ULTRA" and "super BRIGHT EL-81". The plaintiff has also stated that in the year 2001, it applied for and initiated talks for supply of its "super bright" range of detergents to the Armed forces for use in various Army hospitals all over the country. The plaintiff is stated to have developed special formulations for the Army and that as of today, the only detergent chemical that has been approved for use by the Army hospitals is that of the plaintiff under the mark "super BRIGHT".