Vipin Sanghi JUDGMENT
Vipin Sanghi, J.
Brief reasons for passing the order dated 07.04.2016.
1. This order is being passed in continuation of the order dated 07.04.2016. The order dated 07.04.2016 was passed on the day the defendants put in appearance consequent to issuance of summons in the suit and notice in the interim application. In view of the urgency, interim directions were issued on 07.04.2016 and it was observed that reasons for the same shall follow.
2. The plaintiff No. 1 (Havells India Limited) and plaintiff No. 2 (M/s. QRG Enterprises Ltd.) have filed the suit with the grievance that the defendants continue to use the mark "HAVELL'S" in connection with their business enterprise, including as a part of the corporate names of defendants No. 3 & 5. It is claimed that this amounts to infringement of the plaintiffs' trademark, and passing off of the business of the defendants as that of the plaintiffs.
3. The mark "HAVELL'S", which includes the word mark, device mark and other variants of the same, is claimed to be the registered trademark of the plaintiff No. 2. Plaintiff No. 1 is its licensed user, and the said mark has earned reputation and goodwill since 1971. The plaintiffs state that the defendants have no connection with the plaintiffs' brand "HAVELL'S", and the defendants have been conducting their business in identical goods for more than 40 years under the trademark/brand "HPL". It is claimed that the retention of the mark "HAVELL'S" in the corporate names of defendants No. 3 & 5 has enabled the defendants to infringe the plaintiffs' trademark, and dishonestly take advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs.
4. Defendant No. 6 is a company which has come out with a Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) in respect of its proposed Initial Public Offering (IPO). The grievance of the plaintiffs is that the mark "HAVELL'S" is being prominently shown in the said DRHP and in the advertisements issued by the defendants in relation to the proposed IPO, on the premise that defendants No. 3 & 5 are amongst the promoters of the defendant No. 6. By using the names of defendants No. 3 & 5 as the co-promoters of defendant No. 6, the defendants are seeking to mislead the public at large into believing that defendant No. 6 is promoted by the plaintiffs. On that basis, the defendants are seeking to collect subscriptions from the public at large by misleading them. The defendants are seeking to ride upon the goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the plaintiffs, to fraudulently raise money to the tune of Rs. 450 Crores under the proposed IPO. The proposed IPO of defendant No. 6 would pose threat to the goodwill and reputation of plaintiff No. 1, apart from defrauding the general public and the investors.
5. The plaintiffs claim that defendant No. 3 has only income from dividends of around Rs. 1.4 Lakhs, and defendant No. 5 has turnover of about 3.90 Crores. The main business of the defendants is being carried out by defendants No. 4 & 6 under the brand "HPL".
6. The submission of the plaintiffs is that the defendants were restrained from using the mark "HAVELL'S" vide order dated 25.05.1988 passed in C.S.(O.S.) No. 1260/1988 (now re-numbered as Suit No. 929/2010). Defendant No. 3 was injuncted from passing off its goods and business as that of the plaintiffs. The submission of the plaintiffs is that a trademark is infringed not only by its unauthorized use on products, labels, advertising materials, etc., but also upon its use as part of the trade/corporate name of entities dealing with same or similar goods or services, or by use in any manner in connection with the business or enterprise of such entities. Reliance is placed on Section 29(5) of the Trademarks Act to submit that a re........