GILLETTE COMPANY Vs. BHISHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs instituted the present suit for restraining the defendant No. 1 from carrying on business in the name and style of defendant No. 2 of manufacturing, selling, advertising etc. tooth brushes or other products under the trademark GILLETTE and MACH 3 or under any other name as may be deceptively similar to or infringe the trademark of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also claim the ancillary reliefs of rendition of accounts, delivery, damages etc. Vide ex-parte order dated 10th November, 2004, the defendants were restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale directly or indirectly tooth brushes bearing the mark GILLETTE and MACH 3. On the application of the plaintiffs court commissioner was also appointed to visit the premises of the defendants and to prepare an inventory of the infringing goods.

(2.) THE court commissioner appointed by the court filed a report stating that an employee of the defendants was found at the premises on 16th November, 2004; that the defendant No. 1 spoke to the court commissioner on telephone but did not come to the premises; the court commissioner found a large volume of tooth brushes and packaging material bearing the mark GILLETTE and MACH 3 and as per inventory submitted along with the report. The said goods were given on superdari to the employee of the defendants.

(3.) THE defendants, however, could not be served and were not found, including at the place earlier visited by the court commissioner. It appears that the defendants after the visit of the court commissioner wound up their business from the said place. Ultimately, the defendants were ordered to be served by publication and upon their failure to appear were on 6th March, 2007 proceeded against ex-parte and remain ex-parte.