-1- bpk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 2888 OF 1992 1. Anchor Electricals Private Ltd. a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having their registered office at Marathon Inova, C-wing, 1st floor, Opp. Peninsula Corporate Park, Off. G.K. Marg, Lower Parel(west) Mumbai 400 013 2. M/s. Anchor Electricals Pvt Ltd. a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having their registered office at Patlia Road Opp. Supreme Industrial Estate, Daman : Plaintiffs v/s Encore Electronics Limited a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having their registered office at 3, Victory Mansion, Sitladevi Temple Road, Mahim, Bombay 400 018 : Defendants Mr. K.D. Shah with Mr. P. Mazumdar i/b M/s. M.P. Savla & co.Advocate for Plaintiff None for defendant Coram : R.Y. Ganoo,J. Date : 2.4.2009 ORAL JUDGEMENT: 1. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit making a grievance that there has been infringement of trade mark held by the plaintiffs under class 9 and class 11 of The Trade Mark Act 1999 at the hands of the defendants. It is also the grievance of the plaintiffs that the defendants are passing of their goods violating rights of the plaintiffs. Keeping in -2- view these grievances the plaintiffs have prayed for injunction in terms of prayer clauses a, b and c. Plaintiffs have also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from issuing debentures in the name of the defendants. By prayer clause (e) plaintiffs have sought accounts in regard to the affairs of the defendants and have sought damages. In terms of prayer clause (f) the plaintiffs have sought destruction of various goods and articles in regard to the impugned mark and the impugned corporate name and/or trading style. 2. Defendants were served with the writ of summons, however they have not filed written statement and therefore the suit was posted for exparte decree. Since the suit is posted for exparte decree no formal issues have been framed. Plaintiffs have filed evidence affidavit and compilation of documents. 3. Few facts necessary for the disposal of this suit are as under. 4. The suit came to be filed by M/s. Anchor Electronics and Electricals Private Limited against the present defendants namely Encore Electronics ltd. The plaint in detail narrates as to how two companies -3- who are presently shown as plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 have come on record. It is not necessary to go into those details. According to the plaintiffs they have a trade mark ’Anchor’ registered under class 9 and 11 and the plaintiffs are manufacturing electrical goods which are well within the ambit of class 9 and class 11 of The Trade Mark Act. 5. It is the grievance of the plaintiffs that name of the defendants company is Encore Electronics ltd. and the defendants are manufacturing articles which are similar to the articles manufactured by the plaintiffs and brand name given by the defendants to their articles is ’Encore’. 6. The plaint in detail indicates as to how the word Encore is being put up by the defendants in newspaper etc which is similar to the word Anchor in Gujarathi script. Plaintiffs have relied upon correspondence between plaintiffs and clients of plaintiffs which goes to show that clients of the plaintiffs believed that plaintiffs are going to float the public issue whereas the said public issue was to be floated by the defendants. According to the plaintiffs the said confusion arose because Gujarathi script used to denote name of Defendants was very -4- similar to Gujarathi script showing name of plaintiffs. Plaint in detail indicates as to how name adopted by the defendants is similar to that of the name of the plaintiffs and is causing injury to the plaintiffs. According to plaintiffs the defendants are violating the trade mark as also passing of their goods as if manufactured by the plaintiffs in the name and style ’Anchor’. In substance the plaintiffs have narrated various facts and produced various documents which in the submission of the plaintiffs have brought about situation whereby all the customers of the plaintiffs are made to believe that the products manufactured by the defendants are the products manufactured by the plaintiffs. In substance the plaintiffs claim that the plaintiffs have made out good case in their favour for passing orders in terms of prayer clauses a, b and c. Learned Counsel for plaintiffs stated that plaintiffs are not pressing for reliefs in terms of prayer clauses d,e and f. 7. At the outset it will have to be mentioned that the defendants have not filed written statement. As a result of non filing of written statement all the averments in the plaint have gone unchallenged. Even otherwise I have perused the text of the plaint and various documents which are filed. In my view the -5- plaintiffs have made out a good case for passing order in terms of prayer clauses a,b and c as the goods manufactured by the defendants and sold in the market in the name and style of Encore would get easily passed of as the goods manufactured by the plaintiffs and it is causing damage to their reputation in market. In my view injunction in terms of prayer clauses a,b and c are required to be granted. For the reason mentioned aforesaid I pass the following decree. ORDER . The suit is decreed in terms of prayer clauses a,b and c. . The suit is allowed to be withdrawn so far as prayer clauses d,e and f as not pressed. . Defendants do pay to the plaintiffs costs of this suit. (R.Y. Ganoo, J)