- 1 - 8.s.646.04 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO.646 OF 2004 ITC Limited ..Plaintiff -Versus- Batra Products (India) & Anr. ..Defendants .......... Ms.Tanmayi Gadre a/w. Ms.Vijaylaxmi Kulkarni a/w. Mr.Anup Lahoti i/b M/s.Nanu Hormasjee for the Plaintiff. Mr.Hiren Kamod i/b Nanu Hormasjee & Co. for Defendant No.1. .......... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 10TH AUGUST 2011. P.C. 1 This is an action for infringement of copyright and for passing off. 2 The plaintiff is the assignee of the mark ‘MINT-O’. The plaintiff’s predecessor have been using the mark since the year 1989. Even after the assignment, the sales of the plaintiff’s products using the said mark were substantial. In the financial year commencing from 31st March 2003, the sales were of an aggregate value of Rs.1569.61 lacs. For the period 1st March 2003 to 30th November 2003, the sales were of the aggregate value of Rs.791.46 lacs. I mentioned the aggregate value as the mark has - 2 - 8.s.646.04 been used in conjunction with the words in red, orange and lemon and they are separate marks. However, the dominant word of each mark is the word ‘MINT-O’. The plaintiff has, therefore, established its reputation and goodwill in respect of the said mark. 2 The defendant has used deceptively similar marks. The defendant’s marks are ‘MINTO-G’, ‘MINTOO’ & ‘MINTO’. The marks are visually and phonetically similar, if not identical. The addition of the letter ‘G’ in the first mark and the words ‘SMILE’ and ‘LOVE’ in the other two marks makes no difference. The size of these two words on the defendant’s labels are less than 1/5th of the mark ‘MINT-G’, ‘MINTOO’ and ‘MINTO’. 3 The artistic work on the defendants’ labels are also a slavish imitation of the artistic work on the plaintiff’s label. It is unnecessary, however, to express any final opinion in this regard in view of the affidavits made by the defendants. The same is forwarded by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The plaintiff has tendered the said affidavits which are taken on record and marked ‘X’ and ‘X-1’ respectively. The defendants have apologized for what they have done. They have agreed to submit to a full decree and permanent injunction and requested the plaintiff to forgive them. - 3 - 8.s.646.04 4 In view of these affidavits, the plaintiff has rightly taken a very reasonable and sympathetic stand and not pressed the claim for damages and for costs. 5 The suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a) and (b). No order as to costs. -