Hitachi Limited vs Ram Kishan Galhotra And Ors.
1995 Latest Caselaw 665 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

(1) The plaintiff is Hitachi Ltd., a Company incorporated in Japan, and the defendants are persons carrying on business in Delhi. The plaintiff has the filed the suit and prays for the following reliefs:- "IT is humbly prayed that a decree may be passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants to the following effect:- (a) For permanent injunction and order of this Hon'ble Court restraining the defendants themselves, their associated companies, sister concerns, their agents, servants and all other persons on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, and offering for sale and distributing Head Light Dogia, Air Filter Katori, Tail Lamps, Air Filter Elements, Kick Starter-Handle Grip (PVC), Friction Plates and Jumper bearing the mark Hitachi and other goods falling in Class 12 and thereby infringing the plaintiff's registered trade mark Hitachi or any other mark or marks which may be deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade marks. (b) For permanent injunction and order of this Hon'ble Court restraining the defendants themselves, their associated companies, sister concerns, their agents, servants and all other persons on their behalf from using the offending mark Hitachi in respect of Head Light Dogia, Air Filter Katori, Tail Lamps, Air Filter Elements, Kick Starter-Handle Grip (PVC) Friction Plates and Jumper bearing the mark Hitachi in any manner or form whatsoever so as to pass off their goods as those of the plaintiff's manufacture. (c) for delivery upon affidavit by the defendants to the plaintiff all offending cartons, labels, stationery, materials, printing blocks, dies and other offending materials under the impugned trade mark Hitachi for the purpose of destruction and/or obliteration as the case may be. (d) for rending of accounts into the profits made by the defendants since the adoption of the offending mark Hitachi and a decree for the amount so found due to the plaintiff. (e) For costs of the suit. (f) Such other and further order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper be also passed."

(2) The plaintiff has filed an application for injunction. Inasmuch as the defendants have conceded that the name Hitachi in English if used by the defendants would be infringing the rights of the plaintiff in the trade mark. The facts need not be stated in detail. However, the learned Counsel for the defendants contended that they would be within their rights in using the same in Hindi and, therefore, to the extent that the defendants would be entitled to use the Hitashi name in Hindi the claim of the plaintiff should be rejected.

(3) Under exactly similar circumstances. Their Lordships Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Anil Dev Singh had occasion to consider the claim of a person to use the same name in Hindi, in Fao (OS) 169/94. By judgment dated 31st of March 1995 the Bench held that use of the word in Hindi is not permissible and setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge refusing to grant interim injunction was set aside and injunction was granted restraining the respondent therein from using the mark Hitashi in Hindi/Devnagri script.

(4) In the light of the judgment of the Division Bench, I have no hesitation in rejecting the claim of the defendants. Therefore, interim order granted in IA. 10323 / 93 is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.