The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Exxon Mobil Corporation vs Mr. Madhu Paul Trading As M/S. Mahannam Mobil House consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singh awarded litigation costs of Rs.3 lakhs to Exxon Mobil Corporation for infringement of their trademark rights.
Facts
The Plaintiff - ‘Exxon Mobil Corporation’ based in the U.S. was founded in the year 1882 as ‘Standard Oil Company of New Jersey’ and its name was changed to ‘Exxon Corporation’ in 1973. The merger between ‘Exxon Corporation’ and ‘Mobil Corporation’ took place in 1999. The Plaintiff is one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world and is an industry leader in various aspects of energy and petrochemical business. The word ‘MOBIL’ has been a predominant part of the corporate name and trading style of the Plaintiff and its predecessor since the year 1966. The present suit was filed by the Plaintiff against misuse of the mark ‘MOBIL’ by the Defendant- ‘M/s Mahannam Mobil House’ as it was using the mark ‘MOBIL’ as a trading style in respect of the outlet/shop selling automobile oils, lubricants, etc.
Procedural History
An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted restraining the use of the mark ‘MOBIL’ as part of the trading name ‘M/s Mahannam Mobil House’ and a Local Commissioner was appointed to visit the premises of the Defendant. As per the Local Commissioner’s report, the Defendant was not dealing with any product bearing the mark ‘MOBIL’ as the Defendant removed the word ‘MOBIL’ from its display board in its shop and did not use it per se as a trade name or as a trademark on the products.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that as the Defendant had made no appearance, there was no defence on record. Moreover, it had reconciled to the fact that it cannot use the name ‘MOBIL’ as part of its trade name. Under these circumstances it was opined that the suit was liable to be decreed.
It further noted that the Defendant was using the name ‘MOBIL’ as part of its trading style and has conducted sales, commercial activities in the said name. The Plaintiff’s mark being registered, the same constituted infringement and passing off. The Defendant was served a legal notice by the Plaintiff but didn’t cease use of the impugned name. The Plaintiff had to incur legal costs including court fees, local commissioners fee and expenses to protect its legal and statutory rights.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that considering that the scale of operation of the Defendant was not very big and the Defendant had complied with the injunction order, litigation costs of Rs.3 lakhs were awarded to the Plaintiff.
Case: Exxon Mobil Corporation vs Mr. Madhu Paul Trading As M/S. Mahannam Mobil House
Citation: CS (COMM) 123/2022
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Decided on: 5th August 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
