INTEL CORPORATION Vs. S RAMANAN DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Original Application No. 276 of 2002 has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale machinery tools, cranes, hoists winches, gear boxes, brakes, industrial products under the name/mark INTEL or using the name as its trading style/trade name and/or e-mail address, website address and/or any other mark deceptively similar to the applicant's trademark INTEL which is likely to cause confusion or deception amounting to passing off of their goods and business as and for those of the applicant, pending disposal of the suit.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows :- The applicant company on its own and through its subsidiaries is engaged worldwide in the business relating to the internet, electronics, computers and parts thereof including semi conductor devices, memory chips, microprocessors, Central Processing Units being commonly known as the brains of computers, etc. and creating awareness and knowledge of computers under the name and mark INTEL around the world. The applicant since its inception in 1968 has grown to be a truly global corporation and currently employs more than 80,000 people in its various subsidiary companies throughout the world and has global annual turnover of US $30 billion. It has business operation in more than 25 countries covering America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Japan and India. The applicant today is the largest computer microprocessor manufacturer and distributor in the world. The applicant created history in 1971, when it introduced the world's first microprocessor. The use of the name and mark INTEL was first commenced in USA and subsequently extended to other countries of the world including India. The applicant has successfully, continuously and dramatically improved the computing experience for Personal Computer users by providing and selling faster and more powerful information and data processors from time to time. With the passage of time a wide range of products developed by applicant has gained worldwide acceptable in the name and mark INTEL. In India, the applicant has reimbursed the computer manufacturers such as WIPRO, ZENITH, HCL, VINTRON, ACER, PCS and others in excess of US$ 23 million on advertising that carried INTEL INSIDE logo. The applicant had also obtained registration in India of the INTEL INSIDE & Design under No. 556646 in Class 9 for microprocessors, parts and fittings therefor. The registration has been renewed and subsisting. By virtue of prior adoption, prior use and registration as well as extensive publicity and promotion, the trade mark INTEL has earned substantial goodwill and reputation and members of the trade and public associate the trademark INTENL with the applicant and no one else. Moreover, the consistent superior quality and applicant's efforts to continuously design, redesign, develop and upgrade its products with the changing requirements of industry and public has contributed in building enduring public trust. Though the applicant company formally established its operations in India in 1988 with the opening of its branch office in Bangalore, it has been exporting products to India as far back as 1972. The applicant's products gained substantial popularity in India through various advertisements, publications, articles in newspapers and magazines relating to applicant's products. The applicant's subsidiary company and branch office has spent millions of rupees of popularise its INTEL branded products in India. The applicant has been playing a key role in promoting the computer literacy in India and have set up the INTEL TECHNOLOGY CENTER in Bangalore. In 1989, the applicant company established the "Intel Foundation" for the purpose of developing and funding educational and charitable programme.

(3.) During the first week of August 2001, the applicant became aware of a company in Chennai trading under the name Intel Tools & Diesets Limited. The 1st respondent is the Director of the 2nd respondent company. They are carrying on the business of manufacturing and dealing in machines, tools and diesets. They are using the mark/name INTEL as part of its trading style. It is without consent, authorisation or licence of the applicant. The applicant sent a notice on 08.09.2001 to cease and desist the same. A reply was received on 20th September 2001 and they refused to comply with the requisitions. According to them, the mark in question is being used in combination with the word TOOLS (INTELTOOLS as one word). The applicant also sent a rejoinder explaining the diverse business activities carried out by the applicant and the use of the mark INTEL by them would cause confusion in the course of trade. The adoption and use of the respondents of an identical name/mark INTEL as its trading style and in relation to industrial products is clearly dishonest with a view to trade upon and benefit from the goodwill and reputation of the mark INTEL. The trademark INTEL is a coined word having no dictionary meaning. It was coined by the applicant in 1968 and has been used continuously and extensively on a wide range of products. The respondents have been using their corporate name as INTEL TOOLS. It is immaterial whether the respondents use INTELTOOLS as a single word or two separate word as their corporate name. It is merely a scheme adopted by the respondents to conceal their dishonest adoption. The trade name of a company acts as an identifying feature of goods/services provided by the company and plays the rols of a trademark. The impugned mark is a handle of fraud in the hands of the respondents, who are making a misrepresentation to the innocent buyers that their goods are those of or approved by or somehow connected with the applicant. The consumers are likely to assume that the applicant may have licensed the respondents to manufacture cranes, winches and other industrial products. They have no plausible explanation for adopting an identical trade name but to derive pecuniary benefit. The respondents are likely to not only hurt the public interest but also cause irreperable damage to the applicant's business reputation. The applicant has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in their favour. The respondents being a later entrant into the business with the identical name is liable to be restrained by an order of interim injunction till the disposal of the suit. The applicant will suffer irreparable loss and hardship if the order of interim injunction is not granted. Hence the petition.