Tata Sons Ltd. vs Balbir Vohra And Ors.
2006 Latest Caselaw 163 Del

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.

IA No. 897/2005 (under Section 151 CPC)

1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction, restraining passing of, infringement of copyright, dilution of trademark, damages, delivery up, etc. in respect of the trademark TATA.

2. It is not necessary to go into the details of the averments made in respect of the defendants other than defendant Nos.5 and 6, since the suit already stands decreed against other defendants through compromise applications filed between the plaintiff and the said defendants. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 were served in the suit and in view of their failure to appear they were proceeded ex parte.

3. The plaintiff has filed the affidavit of evidence of Mr. V. Gurumoorthi, Executive, Administration and Accounts and the Constituted Attorney of the plaintiff. The affidavit has been duly affirmed and verified which seeks to exhibit the original documents which are exhibited as Exhibit P-1 to P-15 (Exhibits P-4 and P-7 are not on record). The personal attendance of the plaintiff is exempted in terms of sub-Rule 2 of Rule 2 of Order 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

4. The witness has proved the Power of Attorney dated 19.9.2001 in his favor duly authorising him to sign and verify the plaint and institute the suit.

5. The plaintiff was established in the year 1917 and is the principal Investment Holding Company of TATA having turnover of millions of dollars. The TATA Group uses the word TATA in its various fields of activities and it is stated that the mark has worldwide reputation, which has even resulted in the mention of the mark in the Encyclopedia Britannica, the relevant extracts of which have been filed. The plaintiff has filed a certified copy of the Registration of the mark TATA as Exhibit P-5 and P-6.

6. The facts set out in the plaint show that the brand TATA is known worldwide and is associated with the products of the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.5 and 6 have been using the word TATA for Polly buckets and washers. It is obvious that the use of the word TATA by defendant Nos.5 and 6 is only to encash on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and is an attempt to pass of their goods as those of the plaintiff.

7. In view of the aforesaid a decree for permanent injunction is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Nos.5 and 6 from using the trademark TATA in respect of its products Polly buckets and washers and from using any packaging which has word TATA by use of the plaintiff's artistic work. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to cost. Learned counsel for the plaintiff does not press the claim for damages. Decree sheet shall be drawn up accordingly.