Canon Kabushiki Kaisha vs B. Mahajan And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1250 Del

JUDGMENT

Vipin Sanghi, J.

Page 1750

1. By this order I propose to dispose off IA No. 525/2007 under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC filed by the plaintiff and IA No. 1632/2007 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC filed by the defendant. Counsel for both the parties have addressed their arguments and have relied upon the record and various judicial pronouncements.

2. The plaintiff, Canon Inc., is a Japanese company manufacturing professional and consumer Imaging Equipment and Information Systems. The plaintiff company has filed the instant suit for seeking the relief of a perpetual injunction restraining infringement of trademark Canon and infringement of their copyright in the stylised manner in which the said mark is used, and for passing of, delivery up and rendition of accounts.

Plaintiff's contentions:

3. The plaintiff company, under the trademark Canon, started its operations around 70 years ago and has, over the years, earned itself the reputation of manufacturing and selling cameras and multimedia machines which are a benchmark in the industry. Plaintiff company has offices in almost all major countries of the world and manufacturing units in America, Germany, France, Taiwan, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam, China. It has been adjudged as one of the 'Best Global Brands of the Year' for the year 2005. The turnover of the company for the financial year 2005 was US dollar 21,017 million. The mark Canon, as adopted and used by the plaintiff, is an arbitrary word in relation to its business and is distinctive of the plaintiff. The plaintiff adopted and commenced the use of the trademark Canon in the year 1935. The plaintiff are the registered proprietors of the mark Canon in classes 6 and 20 in India. The mark is registered in over 180 countries and regions world over.

4. The plaintiff also has copyright in the unique, stylised, original and artistic manner in which the word Canon, being the trademark of the company, is depicted.

5. Defendant No. 2, Canon Fasteners, is engaged in the business of selling fasteners, nuts, bolts, screws etc. The Defendant No. 1 is the Manager (Operations) of Defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 3 is the owner of the showroom where the products of defendant No. 2 are displayed and sold.

6. Plaintiff's received information, sometime in the month of December 2006, that the products of the defendants are being sold under the mark Canon, identical to that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff conducted a trademark search in the registry and found out that the mark, Canonhold was registered in the name of defendant No. 3 in classes 6 and 20. However, a perusal of the defendants product, as filed by plaintiff revealed that not only it was using Page 1751 the plaintiffs registered trade Mark Canon, the symbol of trademark registration, ie, , appeared next to the infringing user on the packaging. This act of the defendants also constitutes an offense under Section 107 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The legislative intent is to come down heavily on any such violation, since the penalty has been raised from 6 months, (under the 1958 Act) to 3 years under the new Act.

7. In its user of the mark Canon hold the words hold appears inconspicuously and insignificantly on top of the mark Canon. The said word hold is descriptive of the defendants products, and has no significance to the mark adopted by the defendant. The entire effort and intention of the defendants is to ride upon the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's famous and well-known mark Canon. This is clear evidence of the defendants dishonesty and mala-fide and constitutes infringement of the plaintiff's trademark. Since the defendants are seeking to ride on the goodwill of the plaintiff, that is sufficient reason to reject any defense being set up by the defendants. The suit is for infringement as well as passing off, and in an action for passing of, registration of the mark in question by the defendant is not a defense. Deception and confusion are relevant considerations to consider the grant and continuance of injunction. Identical reproduction of the artistic copyright comprised in the logo of the plaintiff company being adopted by the defendants is an imitation constituting infringement of the copyright of the plaintiff in the logo/mark Canon. Mere use of Canon by third parties is not a defense available to the defendants in an action against them. The charge of concealment of relevant and material facts (that the defendant is using the mark Canon hold) is denied, as documents showing the use of mark Canon hold by the defendants have been filed on record. Though defendants claim use of Canon and Canon hold since 1985, no documents of that vintage have been filed on record.

8. Since the plaintiff has obtained registration of the mark Canon for the class of goods sold by the defendants, confusion and the deception is not only imminent, but also inevitable. The defendant ought to be completely injuncted from using the mark Canon in any form and even in conjunction with other words such as hold which the defendant has been using.

Proceedings so far:

9. Summons were issued to the defendants and an ex parte ad interim order of injunction was also passed in IA No. 525/2007 on 17.1.2007 restraining the defendants from using the mark Canon as a trade or service mark and from reproducing the artistic copyright comprised in the logo/mark Canon as depicted in the certificate bearing number 241647 dated 19th January, 1990 bearing registration number 523079.

10. The defendants No. 2 & 3 entered appearance and filed their written statement along with IA No. 1632/07 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.

Defendant's contentions

11. The marks Canon and Canon hold were adopted by Defendant No. 3 (Predecessor of defendant No. 2) as far back as in the year 1985 and was put to commercial use since then. Canon is a dictionary word, which means Page 1752 standard, rule, principle, law and is also a derivative of the Greek word Canon meaning 'Rule', the same is used as a trademark by numerous entities across the world for varied products and services.

12. Defendant No. 3 had filed an Application No. 427509 in class 20 for the Registration of Mark Canon hold in respect of fasteners made of plastic. The said mark was advertised in the Journal No. 967 dated 16.9.1989 at page 774. In the absence of any opposition from any entity including the plaintiff, the same was registered and the said registration has been renewed from time to time and is valid and subsisting even till date.

13. The predecessor of defendant No. 2 had also filed Application No. 433122 in Class 06 for registration of the said Trademark Canonhold in respect of bolts, rivets, nuts and screws and the same was advertised in the T.M. Journal No. 985 dated 16.6.1990 at page 376. The same was also registered and the registration is valid and subsisting till date. Another application No. 524609 in class 06 for registration of trademark Canonhold in respect of expansion fasteners was filed and and advertised in the Journal No. 1233 (Suppl/) dated 21.10.2000 at page 66 with associated Mark No. 431122 and was not opposed by the defendant. Registration thereof is however still awaited.

14. In the year 2000, defendant No. 2 also filed an application for registration of trademark Canon under application number 978131 in class 06 in respect of nuts, bolts, washers, rivets, fasteners and expansion fasteners. The said application was advertised in the trademarks Journal number 1350 dated August 16, 2006 at page 1067. Plaintiff deliberately concealed from this Court the said advertisement of defendants application. The predecessor of defendant No. 2 has been using the said trademarks Canonhold and Canon openly, continuously and extensively in respect of the above said goods, and from the year 2000 onwards defendant No. 2 has been using the same.

15. The defendants have substantial sales of their products under the marks Canon and Canonhold and these trademarks have become distinctive of the defendant's goods owing to their long and continuous use. The plaintiff never raised any objection to the open, continuous and extensive use of these trademarks by the defendants during the past 22 years.

16. The plaintiff has also never used the trademark Canon in respect of nuts, bolts, expansion fasteners etc. or any other goods of the defendants. Therefore it is not entitled to seek the injunction sought for.

17. The defendant No. 2 is a registered concern and assessable to tax and maintains its books of accounts and is not a fly by night operator. It has been in business for considerable length of time and its sales figures are in crores. Thus, the continuation of the injunction order is causing irreparable harm to the defendants, and if the same is vacated, no irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff, while its continuance would cause grave and irreparable injury to the defendant.

18. In the Trade Mark Journal Vol.1228 dated 1.8.2000 the application filed by the plaintiff for registration of Trade Mark Canon under Class 06 vide application No. 523079 dated 19.1.1990 was advertised, Page 1753 proposing to use the same for various items including locksmith works except locks, nuts and bolts. The Registration granted to the plaintiff vide Trade Mark No. 5233079 is also in respect of various items, including locksmith works except locks, nuts and bolts. This registration specifically excluded locks, nuts and bolts since the defendants had already adopted the same mark in respect of the said items since 1985. The search results generated from the database of the Trademarks Registry filed by the plaintiff in relation to the mark Canon in class 6 show its extensive user by several other entities as well, and adoption of the said mark by some of them also goes back to the 1980's. The defendants also rely upon an inspection report filed by them, in respect of classes 1 to 25 and internet search result showing a large number of business entities, the world over, using Canon as a part of their trademark or a part of their trading style.

Discussion & Decision:

19. I have gone through the documents filed on record and the averments made in both the applications before me. I find considerable merit in the grievance of the plaintiff that the defendants have infringed the plaintiff's trade mark Canon by using the said mark per se, or as a part of mark Canonhold wherein the mark Canon is depicted prominently as opposed to the word hold and also infringed the plaintiffs copyright in the mark Canon by depicting the same in the identical and similar artistic and stylised form in which the plaintiff has always used its said mark. The same is evident from the manner in which the trade mark Canon and Canonhold is depicted on the packaging material of the defendant filed by the plaintiff, and in the catalog and price list of the defendants, as filed by the defendants at various places, (except the catalog at page 208 to 211 of the defendants documents). Such user is most likely to cause deception and confusion.

20. During the course of arguments, the defendants have not disputed the aforesaid position. Their defense is that the adoption of mark Canon in the same style as that of the plaintiff was unintentional. In any event, Counsel for defendant submits that the defendants have changed their packaging and are not using Canon in the same artistic manner and stylised form as that adopted by the plaintiff any longer and that the defendants would not use the mark Canon with the same artistic form and stylised manner as that of the plaintiff in future.

21. The aforesaid user of the mark Canon by the defendant can, by no stretch of reasoning be described as bona fide or unintentional. The use of the symbol further compounds the wrong doing of the defendants, since it is sought to be projected that the mark Canon is their registered trademark, which admittedly is not a case.

22. Plaintiff has filed with the suit the infringing packaging material used by the defendant for its products, which appears identical with or similar to the plaintiff's mark. There is nothing to suggest that the said packaging material is not of recent origin. To me, it appears that having been caught red handed and in a defenseless situation, the defendant is now trying to take the winds out of the sails of the plaintiff's case by conceding that it would not, in future, use the plaintiff's mark in the same artistic and stylised manner as adopted Page 1754 by the plaintiff. That to my mind, would not absolve the defendants of the liability that they might have incurred on account of the prima facie infringement of the plaintiff's mark by the defendant and the infringement of their copyright.

23. In Gujarat Bottling Co. Ltd. and Ors. v. Coca Cola Co. Ltd. and Ors. , it was pointed out that the decision whether or not to grant interlocutory injunction has to be taken at a time when the existence of a legal right assailed by the Plaintiff and its alleged violation are both contested and uncertain and remain uncertain till they are established at the trial on evidence. Relief by way of interlocutory injunction is granted to mitigate the risk of injustice to the Plaintiff during the period before the uncertainty is resolved. The Supreme Court also pointed out that the object of the interlocutory injunction is to protect the Plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favor at the trial. It was, however, pointed out that the need for such protection has to be weighed against the corresponding need of the defendant to be protected against injury resulting from his having been prevented from exercising his own legal rights for which he could not be adequately compensated. The court must weigh one need against another and determine where the balance of convenience lies.

24. The purpose of grant of injunction is not to penalise the defendant. It is to protect the interest of the plaintiff to the extent it is justified. The court would have to consider the extent of restraint to which the defendants should be subjected to in future to safeguard the plaintiff's rights and interest and to prevent the infringement of the trademark and copyright of the plaintiff and also the passing of, of the goods and products of the defendant as that of the plaintiff. At the same time, the Court would also address the defenses raised by the defendants. In this case the defenses relate to (i) delay and laches; (ii) acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff; (iii) bona fide and concurrent user of the mark by the defendant; (iv) the injury and loss that would be caused to the defendant in the event of grant of a complete injunction, and other relevant considerations.

25. Before I advert to the plethora of case laws cited by the parties, it has to be kept in mind that a decision, ordinarily, is a decision on the case before the Court. It is the principle underlying the decision that would be binding as a precedent in a case which comes up for decision subsequently.

Therefore, while applying the decision to a later case, the court dealing with it should carefully try to ascertain the principle laid down by the previous decision. A decision often takes its colour from the decision involved in the case in which it is rendered. The scope and authority of a precedent should never be expanded unnecessarily beyond the needs of a given situation. The only thing binding as an authority upon a Page 1755 subsequent Judge is the principle upon which the case was decided. Statements which are not part of the ratio decidendi are distinguished as obiter dicta and are not authoritative. The task of finding the principle is fraught with difficulty as without an investigation into the facts, it cannot be assumed whether a similar direction must or ought to be made as measure of social justice. Precedents sub silentio and without argument are of no moment. Mere casual expression carry no weight at all. Nor every passing expression of a Judge, however, eminent, can be treated as an ex cathedra statement having the weight of authority.

(see The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C v. Mahadeva Shetty and Anr.)

25A. Reliance has been placed by the plaintiff upon Century Travels v. Roshan Lal Duggal PTC (Suppl) (1) 720 (Del) (DB) to contend that priority in use is superior to priority in registration in a passing off action. Therefore, even if the predecessor in interest of defendant No. 2 was an earlier registrant of the mark Canonhold in the particular classes, the prior user of the mark canon by the plaintiff would get priority. The Court held that the mere registration of the mark without proof of actual concurrent user was not relevant unless such evidence was available or led before the Court. The Court in this case did not find material to support a plea of actual concurrent user. However, in the present case, actual concurrent use of the mark Canonhold and the trading style Canon Fasteners by the defendants is prima facie established on record.

26. Reliance is also placed upon Ellora v. Banarasi Das 1981 PTC 46 and Honda Motors v. Charanjit Singh 2003 (26) PTC 1 to submit that injunction can be granted where the mark is being applied by the defendant to different class of goods than the one for which the plaintiffs mark was registered. In Ellora (supra) the parties before the court were both dealing with clocks, watches and time pieces. The defendant was using Ellora as a part of its business name. The Court upheld the order of injunction assailed before it on the ground that the field of activity of both parties was common and therefore there was real and tangible risk of damage resulting from confusion. The court was also guided by the fact that the plaintiffs had already obtained registration in respect of time pieces also, though it had not started manufacturing the same. The possibility of plaintiff engaging in the enterprise could not be ruled out. However, this case is distinguishable on facts, as in the case before me, registration obtained by the plaintiff in respect of goods in class 6 specifically excludes the goods manufactured by the defendant herein, and, in fact, there is no similarity in the goods manufactured by and dealt with by the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendants on the other hand.

27. In Honda Motors (supra) the defendants application for registration of trademark Honda already stood rejected, due to opposition by plaintiff before Page 1756 the Registrar. Honda is a proper noun being a name of a person as opposed to Canon which is a noun having a dictionary meaning. In that sense Canon cannot be considered to be as strong a mark as Honda in the Indian context, where Honda is not a known name/surname. In the cited case, there was no justification for the defendant to have adopted Honda as its mark. In that light of the matter the Court granted injunction in favor of the plaintiff. Moreover, the aspect of actual concurrent user did not come up for consideration before the Court in Honda (Supra) as prominently as it has come up in this case. Similarly, Fedders North American v. Show Line and Ors. 2006 (32) PTC 572 (Del) was a case where there could be no justification given for adoption of the same mark as that of the plaintiff, which was derived from the plaintiffs name and had no connection with the defendants name. Fedders is not a dictionary word and earlier was being used by the predecessor of defendant under license from the plaintiff. The kind of goods being dealt with by both the parties was also same and obviously there was likelyhood of confusion in that case. The defendant was admittedly not using the mark for a few years before injunction was sought from the court.

28. While considering the matter of grant of interim injunction in a passing of action, the cumulative effect of all relevant consideration would have to be assessed. In a passing off action, inter-alia, similarity in the kind of goods and line of trade is an important consideration, though as noticed in Honda (Supra), it is not necessary that the defendant should be engaged in the manufacture or trade of the same kind of goods, or engaged in the same line of trade. This is no to say that the fact that there is dissimilarity in the goods/services of the litigating parties is wholly irrelevant. What has to be assessed is whether there is likelihood of confusion. If there is dissimilarity in the kind of goods/services, the possibility of confusion or deception would normally be less. In my view, it cannot be said in this case that an unwary purchaser of average intelligence and imperfect recollection is likely to mistakenly buy the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff, since the plaintiffs are not at all dealing in the same kind of goods, or in the same line of trade, as the defendants i.e. one relating to manufacture and sale of nuts, bolts, rivets and screws. Cameras and professional and consumer imaging Equipments are high end products having a different market and consumer base as opposed to nuts, bolts, rivets and screws. This case is, therefore, clearly distinguishable on facts and is not applicable to the case before me.

29. The reliance placed on Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by the plaintiff is of no avail, since the defendants are also the registered owners of the trademark Canonhold.

30. In N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation 1996 PTC (16) 476 (SC), the defendant was earlier carrying on business in some other name and the adoption of plaintiff's mark was discovered to be of recent origin. The defendants application for registration of the mark in question was promptly opposed by Whirlpool. Consequently, it was held that it could not be said to be a case of acquiescence. However, in the present case, the defendants/their pre-decessor in interest have been in business with their mark Canonhold and trade name Canon Farstners at least since 1990 and 1989 respectively. As aforesaid, the mark Canon had been adopted by different Page 1757 entities since the 1980s and it cannot be said, prima facie, that the adoption of the said mark/part of trading style was mala fide, when it was so adopted initially. The decision in Mrs. Ishi Khosla v. Anil Aggarwal and Anr. in I.A. Nos. 1854/05 & 2761/05 in CS(OS) No. 309/2005 decided on 25.01.2007 is of little assistance since the products of the plaintiffs and the defendants were similar, and therefore there was likelihood of confusion.

31. The defendants have also cited various precedents in support of their case. In Intel Corporation v. Anil Handa and Ors. 2006 (33) PTC 553, injunction was refused to the plaintiff Intel Corporation on the ground that the defendants were found using the trademark Intel for over 15 years. The court observed when existence of a prima facie case is established, the court has to consider the relevant factors, namely, balance of convenience and irreparable injury. While considering the latter, conduct of the parties becomes relevant. If a party has been acting in a particular manner for a long time and has allowed the other to do likewise, the same would have to be weighed.

32. In Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kishandas v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. Hyderabad and Anr. , it was observed if a trader or manufacturer actually trades in or manufactures only one or some of the articles coming under a broad classification and such trader or manufacturer has no bona fide intention to trade in or manufacture other goods or articles which also fall under the said broad classification, such trader or manufacturer should not be permitted to enjoy monopoly in respect of all the articles which may come under such broad classification and by that process preclude the other traders or manufacturers to get registration of separate and distinct goods which may also be grouped under the broad classification.

33. In Creative Travels (P) Ltd. v. Creative Tours and Travels (P) Ltd. 2006 (33) PTC 430, this court while taking cognizance of the fact that the plaintiff was the prior and registered user of the mark in question also took note of the fact that defendants too had been using the mark for quite a long time and had built up their reputation by doing huge business. If an injunction was granted, the defendants would suffer irreparable loss and injury. While, prior user favored plaintiff long user favored the defendants. The court, therefore held that the defendants could not be stopped from doing their business under the disputed mark.

34. In Honda Motors (supra) it was laid down that, whether there is a mis-representation by the defendant amounting to passing off, or likelihood of passing of is in each case a question of fact. No previous case can therefore be an authority for another case. Each case must depend upon the facts applicable to that case alone.

35. The matter is still at the interlocutory stage and grant of injunction during the pendency of the legal proceedings is a matter requiring exercise of discretion of the Court.

Page 1758

36. Plaintiff places reliance on Madhukar Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inn 2002 (25) PTC 308 (Del), Automatic Electric v. R.K. Dharan and Anr., 1999 (19) PTC 81 (Del) and Honda (Supra) to contend that third party user of the plaintiff's mark is no defense in an action for infringement of the plaintiff's registered mark. However, in the present case, the defendants are also the registered users of the trademark Canonhold, and the registration of the plaintiff specifically excludes Locks, Nuts and Bolts. Moreover, Madhuban Holiday Inn (Supra) and Automatic Electric (Supra) are cases, where the goods/services of the defendant were also of the same kind as that of the plaintiff. Honda (Supra) was a case where the plaintiff Honda (Supra) had contended that it had taken action against all infringements. Moreover, in Honda the court held that illegal use by others was not relevant to deny relief to the plaintiff.

37. One thing is clear. Wide spread user of the mark Canon does show that the said mark is not associated only with the plaintiff. Therefore, it cannot be said that the use of the said mark by the defendants would necessarily lead to the confusion that the goods of the defendant originate from the plaintiff. In fact, wide spread user of the same mark would be a reminder to a customer that there are various users of the mark in question in relation to different products and services and would reduce the possibility of his associating the particular product/service with any other user of the same or similar mark.

38. The said search results filed by the plaintiff show that the mark Canon was adopted by one Best Engineering Company since March 1980 in respect of Locks. Thereafter, Canonhold was adopted by the defendants in January 1985 in respect of Nuts, Bolt, Rivets and, Screws. It is only thereafter, the plaintiff obtained the registration of its mark Canon in January 1990 in classes 6. The inspection report filed on record only pertains to Classes 1 to 25 and there are in all 42 classes. If search inspection is done in respect of other classes, there may be other users of the mark Canon in respect of other products and services. The plaintiff has not, in fact, used its registered trademark Canon in respect of goods falling in Classes 6 of 20. There seems to be force in the defendants submission that the registration obtained by the plaintiff is liable to be taken off the register under Section 47 of the Trademarks Act. The defendants, it appears have been using the mark Canon as a part of their trademark and trade name since 1995 and Canonhold since 1989. This is evident from the various invoices of Munni Lal Krishan Kumar and Canon Fasteners placed on record and the advertisement in the Trademark Journal in 1990 based on user. The defendants apparently have been participating in various exhibitions and openly using Canon as a part of its trading name and style and the plaintiffs do not even claim to have objected to the same. Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd. v. India Stationary Products Co. and Anr. 1989 PTC 61 (Del) relied upon by the plaintiff differs from the present case on this material aspect, inasmuch as, in that case, the plaintiff had been agitating the adoption of the similar mark by the defendants before the Registrar of Copyright.

39. A large number of entities, the world over are apparently using Canon as a part of their trading style and trademark. The Canon Group claims to be world leading suppliers of polyurethane and plastic technologies. Then there is David Canon Construction in Kansas, USA. There is another entity ITT Industries, Canon, which is an international suppliers of Connectors, inter Page 1759 connects, Cable Assemblies, Switches, etc. which is a part of a USA based 4.8 billions, Globe Engineering and Manufacturing Company. Canon Foods is an entity in Australia, engaged in the business of providing meals solutions. There is Canon International Constructing Inc in the United States of America and Canada, Canon Construction was founded in 1978 in USA. These are only few illustrative cases where Canon is adopted as a trading style around the globe. Thus the mark Canon is not distinctive of the plaintiff's good alone, though with respect to the class of goods in fact dealt with by the plaintiff, it may be so.

40. It cannot be ignored that the Plaintiff though has obtained, Registration of the mark Canon in respect of the goods in class 6 but it has till date not used the said mark on any goods falling under class 6 and the defendant's submission that the plaintiff is holding on to the said mark merely to block the adoption and user of the said mark by other entities needs consideration. Even otherwise the registration obtained by the plaintiff of the mark Canon in Class 6 specifically excludes the goods manufactured by the defendant. No objection was apparently raised by the plaintiff to such exclusion in the registration awarded to them. In my view, the plaintiff cannot after more than a decade, now turn around and seek to prevent a registered user of the mark in respect of goods (excluded in its own registration) from using the said mark. Prima facie, there has been considerable delay and laches on part of the plaintiff, in as much as, the registration of the mark Canonhold has not been challenged or revoked.

41. In view of my aforesaid discussion, plaintiff, in my view, is entitled to partial relief. Continuing the blanket order of injunction earlier at the ex-parte stage may sound the death knell of the defendant.

42. I therefore refrain from continuing the injunction earlier granted restraining the defendants from using the mark Canon or Canonhold in its entirety.

43. Accordingly, the restraining order dated 17.1.2007 passed against the defendants, injuncting the use of mark Canon either as a trademark, service mark or as a trading style by itself, or in conjunction with any other words by reproducing the same in the same artistic manner and stylised form as that of the plaintiff and as depicted in plaintiffs trademark registration certificate bearing No. 241647 dated 19.1.1990 bearing the registration number 523079 shall continue till the disposal of the suit.

44. The defendants are free to use the trade mark Canon, Canonhold and the trading style Canon Fasteners, subject to the condition that the said mark/trading style or any part of it is not depicted in the same or deceptively similar artistic and stylised form in which the plaintiff uses its mark Canon.

45. I further direct the defendants to maintain and preserve their accounts including ledgers, account books, vouchers, invoices, income tax returns, sales tax and excise returns etc., regularly, in future and also for a period of three years prior to the date of the filing of the suit. Copies of the aforesaid records pertaining to the past period should be filed by the defendant on record within a period of two months.

46. I.A. Nos. 525/07 and 1632/07 stand disposed off in the above terms.