LARSEN AND TOUBRO LIMITED Vs. CHAGAN BHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff being the registered proprietor of the trademark / trade name LARSEN and TOUBRO, on coming to know of the application of the defendant for registration of the mark LARSON in relation to plywood, veneer wood, venners, wood panelling, wood pulp board, timber, partitions not of metal, moldable wood, door frames not of metals, door panels not of metals, doors not of metals, building timber, boards not of metal in class 19, instituted this suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from using in relation to its business the mark/logo LARSON or any other similar mark or name deceptively similar to that of plaintiff and for restraining the defendant from passing off its goods and business as that of the plaintiff. Ancillary reliefs of damages and delivery were also claimed.

(2.) VIDE ex parte order dated 31st August, 2007, the defendant was restrained from using in relation to any of its business/ goods/ services/products including those in class 19, the mark LARSON or any other deceptively similar mark. A Court Commissioner was also appointed to visit the premises of the defendant to seize and take the infringing material into custody.

(3.) THE plaintiff has led ex parte evidence. The defendant remains ex parte. A perusal of the application of the defendant advertised before acceptance in the Trademark Journal has been proved as Exhibit PW1/6. The same shows that the defendant intends to write the name LARSON in capitals and has claimed use of the aforesaid name/mark since 1st November, 2002. The plaintiff has proved notarized copy of its certificate of registration which it was permitted to do as Exhibit PW1/3. The plaintiff also writes LARSEN in capitals. The plaintiff is engaged in a large number of businesses and services including construction related business. The mark of the plaintiff is a well known mark. The witness of the plaintiff has deposed that the plaintiff came to be known by the said mark/name in conjunction with TOUBRO since the same were the names of the partners of the firm which was the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff.