Castrol Limited And Anr. vs Shankarlal Nagwani
2001 Latest Caselaw 1149 Del

JUDGMENT

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

1. The present suit has been filed by M/s Castrol Ltd and M/s Castrol India Ltd. hereinafter described as the plaintiffs, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants (M/s Shankarlal Nagwani) from infringing the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs and to restrain the defendants from manufacturing and selling tin containers, caps and plastic caps under the trade mark Castrol and Castrol logo or selling the same in the market. Damages also in this regard have been claimed.

2. The facts alleged are that plaintiff no. 1 Castrol Ltd is stated to be a company under the law of England. Plaintiff no. 2 Castrol India Ltd is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at White House, 91 Walkeshwar Road, Bombay. Plaintiff no. 2 carries on business on a large and extensive scale in processing and trading in high grade automotive and industrial lubricants. Plaintiff no. 1 is an internationally renowned company having operations in several countries all over the world and had commenced its activities in India in 1919. On 31st May, 1979 plaintiff no. 2 was setup with the object of processing and marketing high grade and industrial lubricants. Under the scheme of amalgamation initiated by the Indian branch of plaintiff no. 1 to comply with the guide-lines framed by the Govt. of India, plaintiff no. 1 voluntarily offered to reduce the equity shares to 40% in plaintiff no. 2 in India. Thereafter in December 1982 Indrol Lubricants and Specialities Pvt. Ltd became a public limited company and its name was changed to Castrol India Ltd. Thus it is claimed that plaintiff no. 1 is the registered proprietor in India of several trade marks including the trade mark Castrol. The word castrol appears in an oblique script across the horizontal member of the white portion.

3. During the course of business plaintiff no. 2 is stated to be getting manufactured the container caps and plastic caps from the manufacturer as per the list of manufacturers. They have been advertising their products through various printed medias. The container caps are of green colour for the said trade mark and the logo of Castrol.

4. In month of January 1994 the plaintiffs came to know that defendant is manufacturing and supplying tin container caps and plastic caps bearing the trade mark Castrol and logo of Castrol. It is being supplied to infringing parties in India. Plaintiffs are not aware of those infringing parties. Plaintiff no. 2 charges that no order has ever been placed with defendant no. 2 for manufacturing these caps under the trade mark and logo of the plaintiff. This according to the plaintiff is invalid and illegal. In these circumstances the present suit has been filed. On 6th October, 1999 this court had proceeded ex parte against the defendant who failed to appear despite service.

5. The ex parte evidence has been led in the form of affidavit of M H Thanawala, Company Secretary and General Manager (Legal) of Castrol India Ltd. In substance it supports the assertions of the plaintiff. In reveals that plaintiff has been manufacturing the caps of Castrol bearing the trade mark as well as the logo. The trade mark Castrol is registered under no. 421424 in respect of industrial oil and greases. The record also show that the defendant is also allegedly manufacturing similar logos on the caps. Therefore it infringes the rights of the plaintiff.

6. During the course of submissions learned counsel for the plaintiff did not press the claim for damages.

7. In these circumstances, the suit is only decreed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants or his agents from manufacturing or selling tin container caps and plastic caps under the trade mark Castrol and Castrol logo similar to the plaintiffs trade mark and logo. They are further restrained from ... tin container caps and plastic caps under the said trade mark and Castrol logo. There shall be no order as to costs.