LAWS(BOM)-1987-8-15

BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD Vs. METALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS BOMBAY

Decided On August 04, 1987
BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD, BOMBAY Appellant
V/S
METALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS BOMBAY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order dated April 7, 1987 passed by Mr. Justice Suresh, on a Notice of Motion taken out by the plaintiffs, refusing to grant interim injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner using in relation to domestic appliances and kitchen utensils and appliances and wares and in particular in respect of the products mentioned in the brochure (being Ex. 'G' to the plaint), the mark 'Bajaj' or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered trade marks so as to pass off or enable others to pass off the defendants' goods as and for the goads of the plaintiffs. The facts which gave rise to the passing of the impugned order are as follows :

(2.) The plaintiffs are a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913 and are carrying on business as manufacturers of electric lamps, lighting, fittings, accessories, kitchen appliances such as stoves, heaters, toasters, mixers, grinders, pressure cookers and kitchen wares. The plaintiffs are also manufacturers of domestic appliances such as immersion heaters, room heaters, geysers, water filters, fans, oven hot plates etc. The plaintiff were incorporated in 1938 under the name "Radio Lamp Works limited" which name was changed to "Bajaj Electricals Limited "in the year 1960. The plaintiffs have been manufacturing and marketing electrical kitchen appliances, kitchen wares and domestic appliances for over number of years and the plaintiffs are one of the Companies with renown and reputation operating in India under what has come to be known as "Bajaj Group". The Bajaj Group manufacture and market industrial and consumer products. The turnover of the plaintiffs in the year 1960, was Rs 23,257 thousand and it went progressively increasing and in the year 1986, it was to the tune of Rs. 73.94 crores. The products manufactured by the plaintiffs; were sold under mark 'bajaj' since the year 1961. The mark 'Bajaj' together with 'eye' device has been extensively used by the plaintiffs since the year 1965 in respect of their wares. The mark is also widely advertised by the plaintiffs through the media of Television, Cinema slides, magazines, newspapers, etc. and the advertisement and publicity expenses in the year 1986 were to the tune of Rs. 1,97.72 Lacs The break-up of the statement of sales during the year 1974 to 1986 in respect of electric lights and appliances indicates that kitchen appliances of value of Rs. 2,92,22,831 were sold in the year 1974 and the figure jumped up in the year 1986 to Rs. 1426.23 Lacs. The plaintiffs have got registered the mark consisting of word 'Bajaj' with the device, of 'eye' with respect to various products and these registrations are in respect of goods covered under Class 7, 9 and 11. The registration was effected initially on April 16, 1964 in respect of Class 11 and in the years 1973 and 1975 in respect of goods covered by Class 7 and Class 11.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 are a partnership firm and defendant No. 2 are a firm marketing the products manufactured by defendant No. 1. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendants were not using any trade mark in respect of products manufactured by them. The plaintiffs complain that with a view to trade upon the reputation acquired by the plaintiffs' trade mark consisting of the word 'bajaj', the defendant No. 1 adopted an identical mark "Bajaj" and the only dissimilarity between the mark of the plaintiff and the mark of defendant No. 1 is that the first letter 'B' is in capital and the mode of writing letter 'B' is slightly different and all the words are joined. The plaintiffs claim that in or about middle of January 1987, the plaintiffs were surprised to find that defendant No. 1 was using the mark "Bajaj" in respect of kitchen appliances such as Hot-Pot, Hot-Carrier, Ice Box, Hot Lunch Box, etc. and defendant No. 2 were marketing the same. The plaintiffs also came across a brochure, a specimen of which is annexed as Ex. "G" to the plaint wherein statements are made to mislead the public into believing that the products manufactured by the defendants are those emanating from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereupon served notice dated February 6, 1987 on the defendants calling upon forth with desist from using the mark. The defendants failed to reply and that gave rise to the filing of the suit on February 19, 1987. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants, with a view to trade upon with the plaintiff's reputation, have adopted the mark which is identical to the one used by the plaintiffs all along. The plaintiff claim that the user of the mark would lead to deception and confusion in the mind of the public and more so as the goods manufactured by the parties are available across the counter and in the same shop and the class of purchasers are also the same in respect of the products. The plaintiffs claim that the identity of the mark and the identity of the products and the identity of the purchasers will inevitably lead to deception and confusion. The plaintiff's, therefore, sought a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner using the offending mark of any other mark deceptively similar.