ATUL PRODUCTS LIMITED Vs. ATUL DYES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a long drawn battle in a suit for infringement of Registered Trade Mark and Passing Off because the suit filed on 3 is still at the dispute of a stay granted under sec. 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 (herein after referred to as the Act).

(2.) The petitioner The Atul Products Ltd. has got made Mark ATUL registered with the Registrar of Trade Marks. On or about 8-11-1962 the petitioner-Company made three applications. After scrutinising and hearing on various points the applications were granted and the trade marks were registered. All these aspects are mentioned in paragraph 4 and onwards of the petition which I do not propose to discuss in details. Another batch of three applications was given on 1-12-1964 and those applications were accepted and registration was duly granted. Then in paragraph 8 and onwards it has been mentioned that there is a vast market for the products of the petitioner-company and the registered trade mark has become synonymous with the products of the Company and its popularity etc. and also there is mention about various awards etc. having been received by the petitioner-Company for the products of ATUL. The petitioner-Company also in collaboration with a seem Company known as CIBA formed a company CIBATUL LIMITED. Then concoctions with another American Company and internationally reputed companies are also shown. But those names have nothing to do with the word ATUL. Therefore I do not mention them.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner-Company that the opponent-Company was also dealing in dyes and is using the name ATUL DYES. Having known that the trade-mark ATUL was being infringed and the goods of opponent-Company were being passed off as those of the petitioner-Company the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit no. 6 of 1977 on 3-11-1977 in the District Court Surat to restrain the opponent-Company from infringing the petitioner-Companys registered trade-marks as well as the trading style. In that ad interim injunction was obtained against the opponent-Company which was later on confirmed. Against that order the opponent-Company filed an appeal being Appeal from Order No. 85 of 1978 before this Court on 17-3-1978. In that appeal from order a compromise was entered into. In that compromise it was mentioned that the opponent-Company would mention prominently at a conspicuous place on their products the words Not connected with THE ATUL PRODUCTS LIMITED OF BULSAR and therefore the interim injunction was vacated. But it is also the grievance that this undertaking is breached and the opponent-Company is not mentioning the aforesaid words on its goods prominently at a conspicuous place. At any rate this is a matter involved in another Appeal from Order No. 163 of 1981 which is before this Court and which is to be decided after the decision of this revision petition.