PATEL FIELD MARSHAL AGENCIES Vs. TELANGANA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORIGINAL Applications No. 4 to 6 of 2000 are filed by the applicants/plaintiffs for ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from in any manner infringing the applicants, registered trade marks CASTROL, CASTROL GTX, CASTROL CRB and CASTROL LOGO by use of Trade Marks identical or deceptively similar, interim injunction restraining them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off the respondents' lubricants oils and greases and for the applicants' products and also interim injunction restraining them from in any manner infringing the applicants' copyright in the Artistic Work Castrol Logo by reproduction of an identical logo or any logo which is a substantial reproduction of applicants Castrol Logo and from infringing the applicants' copyright in the Artistic work, etc.

(2.) APPLICATION No. 36 of 2000 has been filed by the applicants to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to visit the premises of respondents 1 to 9, their relations or any of them and to seize and take into actual physical custody of the articles. APPLICATION No. 37 of 2000 has been filed by the applicants seeking permission to combine causes of action in respect of passing off, infringement of trade mark and also infringement of copyright.

(3.) THE second respondent procures the spurious Castrol Oils and other products from the first respondent. THE 3rd respondent procures the spurious products from respondents 1 and 2. Similarly, respondents 3 to 9 are also procuring the spurious Castrol Oils and other products from respondents 1 and 2. THE samples purchased from the respondents' premises were sent for laboratory test and the Analyst confirmed that the lubricants oils and greases sold by the respondents are spurious and substandard. THE use of the respondents' oil is bound to damage the vehicle and also hamper the performance of the vehicle. Use of spurious oil may lead to road accidents and endanger to human life. THE respondents are passing off and enabling others to pass off their substandard goods as that of the applicants. THEy have copied the applicants' artistic work, packaging, etc. THEre is no difference whatsoever between the applicants' artistic work and the artistic work bearing on the respondents' containers. THEy have also printed the name and addresses of the 2nd applicant as the manufacturer of spurious oil. THE respondents ought to have printed their names and address. Under Section 39 of the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 read with Rule 6 of, the respondents ought to have printed the names and addresses as manufacturer and packer of spurious Castrol oils. THEy do not have a licence issued by the Central Government and they have violated the Essential Commodities Act. THE respondents are committing fraud on the trade and public. It had caused confusion and deception amongst the trade and public. An ordinary purchaser cannot make out any difference between these two containers/cartons. THE applicants have suffered and continue to suffer by the respondents' wrongful activities, which has caused irreparable loss and damage. Hence, these applications.