SIMATUL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PVT LIMITED Vs. CIBATUL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One will have to reflect a great deal before saying What is in a name ? for everything centers around a name (Cibatul ? Simatul ?) in the battle between two business houses giving rise to the present appeal. And the question debated before the Court is as to whether the trial Court was right in holding that the name Simatul Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. under which the appellant defendant is doing business is so deceptively similar to the name of the respondent plaintiff Cibatul Limited that the public at large and the consumers are likely to be deceived into believing that they are dealing with the same Company or Companies having some connection or association with each other and that in order to protect the plaintiff Company from its goodwill being invaded and in order to prevent confusion among the public at large and consumers it was necessary to restrain the defendant Company from carrying on business under any name and style comprising the words Simatul or Cibatul or any other word comprising the plaintiffs name and style so as to represent or induce into believing that the defendant Company is the same as the plaintiff Company or that the goods manufactured and sold by the defendant Company are the goods manufactured and sold by the plaintiff Company.

(2.) A public limited company known as the Atul Products Limited is engaged in the manufacture of dyes and chemicals of various types since 1947 In collaboration with a Swiss Company with international reputation in the sphere of manufacture of dyes and chemicals known as Chemical Industry of Bezal which is known in the international market as CIBA it floated a Company in 1960 under the name and style of Cibatul which represents the names of the two collaborating Companies (Ciba + Atul). In other words it is a fancy or coined name under which the plaintiff Companies carrying on its manufacturing and business activities. The plaintiff Company commenced the manufacture of a chemical known as Formal dehyde in about June 1973. This chemical is used as raw material for the manufacture of other chemicals resins etc. The defendant Company was formed in order to manufacture Formaldehyde the commercial production of which was expected to start in about June 1974. It registered itself as a public limited Company under the name Simatul Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. Simatul the first word in the name is a coined or invented word. It is the case of the plaintiff-Company that the name Simatul is deceptively similar to the name of the plaintiff company Cibatul and it was calculated and likely to mislead or confuse the public at large the consumers and those who were dealing with the plaintiff Company into believing that both the Companies were same or were connected or associated with each other and that the goods and products manufactured by the defendant Company were the goods and products manufactured by the plaintiff Company.

(3.) It was not disputed in the trial Court and it is not disputed before this Court; that the plaintiff Company Cibatul Limited has acquired considerable reputation in the business world in the sphere of manufacture of chemicals. Apart from the concession made by the counsel for the defendant Company in the trial Court and in this Court this part of the case was not disputed even by the witnesses of the defendant Company. It is not necessary therefore to examine the evidence pertaining to this aspect. A conclusion has been firmly recorded that the plaintiff Company has acquired an India wide reputation in the sphere of manufacture of cheMicals in the business world and its products are very well known. The defendant Company was incorporated in February 1973 and commenced commercial manufacture of Formaldehyde in October 1974. It therefore appears that the defendant Company with the fancy name adopted by it came to be formed some 13 years after the incorporation of the plaintiff Company. The controversy in this appeal revolves around two principal issues: (1) Whether the name Cibatul which forms a part of the name of the plaintiff Company and the name Simatul which forms a part of the name of the defendant Company are so similar that confusion is likely to be created amongst those who are dealing with the plaintiff Company and the public at large and the consumers; and (2) Whether the plaintiff Company has a legal right to prevent the defendant Company from carrying on its business in the present name in case the Court comes to the conclusion that the two fancy names are deceptively similar.