Arijit Banerjee, J. - (1.) The Court : Affidavit of service filed in Court be kept with the record.
(2.) It is not in dispute that the plaintiff/petitioner is the registered owner of the trademarks SILVER BOND, FERRO SPARK, FERRO FIT, FERRO CLASS and SAI ARC. It is also clear from records that the petitioner has been using these trademarks in connection with the product that it manufactures, i.e., welding electrodes since at least 2015. The petitioner has also obtained registration of the word marks FERRO CLASS and SAI ARC.
(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent is using trademarks which are the same or deceptively similar to the petitioner's trademarks. The petitioner has demonstrated that the respondent is using the trademarks SAI ARC PLUS, SILVER BOND PLUS, FERRO SPARK PLUS, FERRO CLASSIC and FERRO FIX. It is clear that the trademarks used by the respondent which are objected to by the petitioner are deceptively similar to the registered trademarks of the petitioner. Further, the getup, colour scheme etc. of the respondent's packaging are very very similar to that of the petitioner's packaging. In my opinion, apart from amounting to infringement of trademarks within the meaning of Section 29(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the respondent is also passing off its products as those of the plaintiff. The deceptive similarity in the appearance of the packaging of the petitioner's product and the respondent's product is very likely to confuse buyers of the product as regards the source of the product and an unsuspecting purchaser may well end up purchasing the respondent's product thinking that he is buying the petitioner's product. I am, further, of the prima facie view that this colourable imitation of the petitioner's packaging and infringement of the petitioner's registered trademarks is prompted by a dishonest motive on the part of the respondent to eat into the petitioner's business. It is not that the respondent has used or infringed only one trademark of the petitioner. All the petitioner's trademarks have been sought to be used by the respondent. I am, prima facie, of the view that the respondent has infringed the petitioner's trademarks and has also committed the tort of passing off its product as those of the petitioner. ;