1 s5648-99 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.5648 OF 1999 Siemens Limited ....Plaintiffs V/s. M/s.Premier Engineering Works & Anr. ....Defendants Mr.Shahezad Kazi i/b M/s.Negandhi, Shah & Himayatullah for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 22ND JUNE, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The plaintiffs have sought a perpetual order and injunction restraining the defendants from importing or selling any spurious, fake or duplicate products styled as products manufactured by or emanating from the plaintiffs or Siemens A.G. or their subsidiaries etc. The plaintiffs have also sought an order directing the defendants to deliver up the consignment of contactors and relays for destruction. 2. No written statement has been filed. 3. The plaintiffs claim to be an extremely renowned company whose activities span diverse fields in the engineering, electrical, electronic and telecommunication sectors. They are a 51% subsidiary of Siemens A.G., the world leaders in the filed of manufacture and sale of such equipment. 2 s5648-99 4. At the time of filing of the suit, the plaintiffs’ sales figures were approximately Rs.100.00 crores of which Rs.50.00 crores was in respect of the switch gear division. The contents of the plaint establish the plaintiffs’ enormous reputation in the said goods and in the trade name and codes given by the plaintiffs to their products including the contactors and relays. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the various trade marks including the trade mark “Siemens”. 5. In or about 6.9.1999, the plaintiffs were informed by the Customs Authorities that the consignment of similar goods had been delivered at the Bombay port and was to be cleared. The plaintiffs were called upon to comply with all the formalities in that respect. The price informed however, was considerably lower than for similar articles sold by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs therefore, examined the invoice, packing list and other documents and found that the goods were not manufactured by them or their associate companies. This obviously affected the reputation and business of the plaintiffs and cause them enormous harm and prejudice. 6. Defendant No.1 was the importer of the said fake goods. After the suit was filed, the plaintiffs learnt that defendant No.1 sold the consignment on high seas basis prior to the filing of the suit to defendant No.2. Accordingly, the plaint was amended to implead defendant No.2 and seek reliefs against defendant No.2 as well. 7. There is nothing on record that belies the plaintiffs’ case. 8. Pursuant to an ad-interim order, the goods were seized. The ad-interim orders were passed in respect of the fake goods which were 3 s5648-99 represented to be those of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.2 was permitted by an order dated 12.10.1999 only to reexports the other goods. The fake goods are, I am informed, still with the Court Receiver. 9. The defendants have not come-forth to establish their right in respect of the goods, which have been seized. No oral evidence is required in respect of the reliefs claimed. No party can in any event sell goods representing them to be those of another. 10. In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (i). Costs to be quantified as per rules. The Court Receiver, appointed by this Court, shall continue in execution for the purpose of executing the decree in terms of prayer (b). Thereupon the Court Receiver shall stand discharged without passing any accounts but subject to payment of his costs, charges and expenses. Prayer (b) shall be complied with only after the period for filing an appeal expires.