Castrol Ltd. And Ors. vs Mukesh Kumar And Anr.
2001 Latest Caselaw 1851 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff inter alia stating that plaintiff No. 1 Castrol Limited was a Company incorporated under the laws of England. Plaintiff No. 2 is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. Plaintiff No. 2 is carrying on business in processing and trading in high grade automotive and industrial lubricants, greases, brake fluids, wood preservatives, metal cleaning compounds and various speciality products in India. It is the stand of the plaintiff that plaintiff No. 2, was set up and in December , 1982 Indrol Lubricants and Specialities Pvt. Ltd., in view of amalgamation between Indrol Lubricants and plaintiff No. 1 M/s. Castrol Limited became a public limited company and the name was changed from 1st January, 1990 as M/s. Castrol India Limited. The plaintiff No. 1 has got Trade Mark Castrol registered in India on 17.11.1969 in respect of industrial oils and greases, hydraulic fluids being oils, lubricants, fuels and illuminant as a distinctive logo comprising a solid coloured circle cross which is an irregularly shaped white portion.

2. It is contended hat trade mark Castrol is dominant in automative sector the details of which have been given at page 9 of the plaint and the packing materials used by t he plaintiff are in the carton pouch plastic and tin containers and have distinctive colour, get up, layout and artistic features and the said packing materials are artistic work covered under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Plaintiff has given the turn over in para 11 of the plaint, the expenditure incurred at advertising has been given in para 14 of the plaint.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff t hat in 1998 come to know that the defendants are manufacturing and supplying the plastic container in the trade mark, logo Castrol as well as Castrol printing bales under the trade Mark Castrol CRB PLUS. The defendants are supplying the plastic containers under the trade mark, logo of Castrol as well as printed labels for Castrol CRB PLUS and thereby infringing the registered trade mark of the plaintiff.

4. Summons in the suit was served on the defendant. The defendant chose not to appear before the Court. The Local Commissioner was also appointed by this Court who found the infringing materials as well as the mould.

5. I have perused through the report of the Local Commissioner. As nobody appeared for the defendant the plaintiff was directed to file evidence on affidavit. Affidavits of Murlidhar Balasubramanian, Manager-Trade Marks Operations has been field and reiterated the averments made in the plaint. Photo copies of the products which has been filed with the plaint are Exhibits P-17 and P-18 and the labels of the plaintiff are P-20 and P-22. He has also deposed that the plastic containers as well as printed labels which are used by the plaintiff as material which is used by the defendant are not those which are manufactured by the plaintiff. The defendants have also infringed the labels by infringing CRB PLUS of the plaintiff.

6. In view of the evidence on record, the use of trade mark Castrol CRB PLUS in respect of the printed material on lubricants, oil as well as using of the plastic container with the trade mark Castrol logo, the defendants are infringing the legal rights of the plaintiff by infringing trade mark as well as copyright of the plaintiff. The defendants are trying to pass off the goods as that of the plaintiff. The use of the plaintiff's trade mark, logo on containers in deceptively manner is dishonest use and to pass off its goods on the basis of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff.

I pass a decree against the defendants in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (d) of the plaint. Suit decreed accordingly with costs.

7. Suit decreed with costs.