KEWAL KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. MASTER HAWA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his servants and agrents, stockists, distributors and dealers from manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale, stocking, advertising or otherwise dealing in Atta (Flour and/or cognate and allied products under the trade mark SHIV SHAKTI BHOG or any other trade mark which may be identical or deceptively similar to the registered trade mark SHAKTI BHOG of the plaintiff and from passing off his goods and business under the aforemention trade mark.

(2.) Brief facts which led to the institution of the present case are as under: that the plaintiff has been carrying on business under the name and style of Kumar Dal Mill. He is the sole proprietor of the said firm. He is, as such, competent to sign and verify the plaint and to bring forward the present suit. He has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing of flour (Atta), Gram Flour (Besan), Dal, Maida, Sooji Rawa, Bran etc., since the year 1975 under the trade mark SHAKTI BHOG in respect of his aforesaid goods. The plaintiff is the true owner and lawful proprietor of the said trade mark in respect of the said goods. The aforementioned trade mark SHAKTI BHOG of the plaintiff is duly registered under No. 391844 in Class 30 as from June 16, 1982. The registration of the said trade mark is still valid, subsisting and effective throughout India. The plaintiff has been using the said trade mark SHAKTI BHOG continuously, regularly, openly, extensively, exclusively and uninterruptedly since the year 1975. The trade mark SHAKTI BHOG has become a household name for food products. The plaintiff has given wide publicity to the said trade mark to such an extent that the said trade mark i.e., SHAKTI BHOG is identified and associated by the public exclusively with the goods of the plaintiff and none else. By virtue of long and continuous user and registration of the said trade mark the plaintiff has a statutory, legal and vested right to the exclusive use of the said trade mark SHAKTI BHOG in respect of the said goods. The defendant has recently started offering for sale and marketing of same goods Flour (Atta) under the trade mark SHIV SHAKTI BHOG. The said trade mark is identical and deceptively similar to the trade mark SHAKTI BHOG of the plaintiff. The adoption and use of the said trade mark SHIV SHAKTI BHOG on the part of the defendant is in clear and flagrant violation of the plaintiff's legal, vested and statutory rights. The defendant has done so with a dishonest and mala fide intention in order to enable him to make use of the hard earned reputation of the plaintiff and thus to earn profits in an illegal manner. It is the use of the said trade mark by the defendant which is likely to cause deception and confusion among the members of unwary purchasers. The plaintiff is thus likely to suffer irreparable loss and damage. The members of the public are likely to purchase the goods of the defendant under the impression that the same are the goods of plaintiff. Hence arose the necessity for the institution of the present suit.

(3.) The suit proceeded ex parte against the defendant as the defendant did not put in any contest.