CAPITAL PLASTIC INDUSTRIES Vs. KAPPY PLASTIC INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this suit the plaintiff claims perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in thermos jug under the trade mark RAHBER or any other trade mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff's trade mark RABBER. The allegations of the to plaintiff for claiming the perpetual injunction as laid down in the plaint are as follows :-

(2.) The plaintiff claims to have adopted a distinctive and celebrated trade mark RABBER in respect of the thermos jug and started using the trademark from 1.1.1983. An application for registration of the mark RABBER is claimed to have been filed on 20.5.1983 bearing No. 405743 by which the user is claimed to be from 1.1.1983. It is alleged that the plaintiff has acquired a good reputation in the mark because of high quality of goods manufactured by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also got registered the copyright in the artistic label of RABBER. The distinctive features of the trade mark are that the letters of the trade mark RABBER have been put in the manner of semicircle. It is further alleged that the plaintiff is also using the trade mark RAHBER written in the same manner as RABBER in respect of the same goods since September 1985. The plaintiff has acquired valuable good-will and reputation in respect of this mark. Publicity is claimed to have been given to the mark RABBER through various media. The plaintiff claims to be the owner and proprietor of the trade mark RABBER and RAHBER. The case of the plaintiff is that in March 1986 he came to know that the defendant had started manufacturing and selling thermos jug under the trade mark RAHBER which is identical to the trade mark RAHBER of the plaintiff and is also deceptively similar to the trade mark RABBER of the plaintiff. The defendant is passing off the thermos jug manufactured by him under the trade mark RAHBER as that of the trade mark of the plaintiff. This wrongful act of the defendant has caused great loss and irreparable injury to the plaintiff's goodwill.

(3.) Alongwith the suit the plaintiff has filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1&2 being LA. 3631/1986 which is under disposal, seeking the interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark RAHBER during the pendency of the suit. In the application it is further alleged that the plaintiff has a very good prima facie case to succeed and in case the defendant is not restrained by way of interim injunction the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury.