ROLEX SA Vs. ALEX JEWELLERY PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE application of the plaintiff for interim relief restraining the defendants from dealing in artificial jewellery or in any other product bearing the trademark /trade name ROLEX or any deceptive variation thereof is for consideration.

(2.) THE plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of switzerland and is engaged in the business of manufacture and distribution of premium quality watches, horological and chronometric instruments, atomic clocks, chronographs, watch bands, watch cases, watch chains, watch glasses etc. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the action of the defendant No. 1 carrying on business at Mumbai of manufacturing, selling, distributing and trading in artificial jewellery under the mark ROLEX and the actions of the defendants 2 and 3 carrying on business at Delhi of retailing of the said artificial jewellery; of these the defendant No. 2 is carrying on business in the name and style of ROLEX Jewellery House.

(3.) THE plaintiff claims adoption of the trade mark ROLEX and the first registration thereof in Switzerland in 1908. It is further the case of the plaintiff, that the plaintiff has since then been using the trademark ROLEX in respect of its distinguished products and business and has been trading under the said name extensively across the world; that ROLEX is a coined and distinctive name having no dictionary meaning; that it is registered in 140 jurisdiction across the world; that in India also it is registered in class 14 relating to horological and chronometric instruments and watches and clocks of all types since 1949; that the plaintiff on 24th April, 2001 also got ROLEX in Hindi registered in class 14 with respect, inter alia, to chains (Jewellery), charms (Jewellery), diamond earrings, jewel cases of precious metal Jewellery, medallions (Jewellery), necklaces (Jewellery), ornament (Jewellery), Pearl (Jewellery) etc. The plaintiff claims having used the trademark rolex in India since 1912 i. e. , even prior to the registration thereof in 1949. It is further pleaded that after achieving excellence in its aforesaid field in business, the plaintiff has also been associated with sporting and cultural events and sports persons across the world are designated as ROLEX Ambassadors. The plaintiff also claims promoting its business via its website also containing the word rolex. It is the case of the plaintiff that ROLEX is a well known trade mark as defined under Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention to which India is a signatory. It is pleaded to have been so held as a well known trade mark deserving protection against unauthorized use by various foreign courts.