JAYNA ENGINEERING WORKS Vs. ASHWANI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the plaintiff has sought an injunction against the defendants so as to prevent the defendants from using mark "JYOTI" or "JYOTI LABEL" or any other trade mark/label identical with or deceptively similar to plaintiff's trade mark "JAYNA" or "JAYNA LABEL" or wrapper or packaging.

(2.) The plaintiff had contended that it adopted trade mark "JAYNA" as a word mark and a label (JAYNA LABEL) in respect of its auto parts, diesel oil engine parts and parts used in generators, electric motors etc. It is stated that "JAYNA LABEL" represented word mark "JAYNA" written in a stylish and artistic manner inside a rectangle with red background surrounded by yellow and red border line. The placement and adjustment of letters of mark "JAYNA" inside the rectangle coupled with colour combination, make up, etc. formed an artistic work and this artistic work was a creation of the plaintiff and the label and the mark represented plaintiff's trade name "JAYNA Engineering Works". The plaintiff enjoyed tremendous goodwill and reputation in the business of auto parts, diesel engine parts and plaintiff is referred in business circle as "JAYNA House". The plaintiff applied for registration of his trade mark under Trade Mark Act, 1999 and "JAYNA" trade mark was registered vide trade mark No. 597017 in Clause 12 since 1993. The plaintiff has given registration number of "JAYNA LABEL" also but not given the date of registration. It is contended by plaintiff that the defendants' word mark "JYOTI" was so written in the label that it became deceptively similar to trademark of plaintiff. It is pleaded that plaintiff has no reservation or objection as far as word "JYOTI" was concerned per se but plaintiff was aggrieved by user of a label depicted word "JYOTI" within a rectangle, making it deceptively similar to the label of plaintiff.

(3.) It is submitted that writing and lettering style of word "JYOTI" was identical to the writing and lettering style of the plaintiff's trade mark "JAYNA" especially size and other features and placement and adjustment of letters of word "JYOTI" made it look like similar to the trade mark of plaintiff namely "JAYNA" and "JAYNA LABEL". It is alleged that the defendant has substantially copied the well known trade mark of the plaintiff. It is however admitted by the plaintiff that after it served notice upon the plaintiff to seize and desist the use of trade mark, defendant informed the plaintiff that they were registered proprietor of trade mark "JYOTI" and the "JYOTI LABEL". The plaintiff claimed that the defendants obtained impugned registration by misrepresentation, concealing and by playing underhand tactics with the Registrar of Trade Mark. Thus, the impugned registration of defendant was void ab initio. The defendants were not the proprietor of the impugned mark or label and had no right to adopt the same.