1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3446 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2397 OF 2009 1 Skoda Auto a.s. & anr. ...Plaintiffs. Vs. One Stone International Private Limited ...Defendants. Mr.Amit Jamsandekar i/b. Gajaria & Co. for the Plaintiffs. None for the Defendants. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 11th January, 2010. P.C.- 1 This Notice of Motion is taken out by the plaintiffs in Suit No. 2397/2009 and prayed basic reliefs against the defendants who failed to appear in this matter and in fact refused the service. Affidavits of service are filed on record of each stage and lastly of dated 8.1.2010, based upon the earlier orders dated 25.09.2009, 12.10.2009 and 9.11.2009 passed by this Court. 2 On November 5, 1929, plaintiff no.1 obtained registration for the trade mark “SKODA” under No.65890 in the Czech Republic. This is the First plaintiff’s oldest registration. The plaintiffs also obtained registration 2 for the trade marks SKODA, Octavia, FABIA, & LAURIA in India. Plaintiff No.1 also applied for several other trade marks in India which are pending. 3 In November, 2001, plaintiff No.1 entered the Indian Automobile Market through plaintiff No.2 by launching the “Octavia”, a mid-size car which received a tremendous response. Since then, the first plaintiff has developed a wide consumer base in India and continues to expand the same. The plaintiffs have spent an appreciable amount of time, money and energy on advertisement and promotion of their automobiles and serv ices under the trade marks “SKODA” / / on a worldwide basis including India resulting in exclusive association of the trade marks “SKODA”/ / with them. Apart from strengthening the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs, extensive advertising has resulted in leaving a lasting imprint in the minds of the public. The plaintiffs have invested years of time, capital,. Efforts and resources and attained immeasurable fame, goodwill and reputation in the trade marks “SKODA”/ / . Needless to say, the first plaintiff’s said trade marks are extremely well- known throughout the world and their long, extensive and continuous use has resulted in the automobiles/services under the said trade marks receiving loyal and extensive patronage from numerous consumers all over the world including in India. 4 In December, 2008, the second plaintiff came across a brochure of the defendant featuring the first plaintiff’s trade marks “SKODA”/ . From 3 the contents of the brochure, the second plaintiff discerned two domain names viz. “onestone.in” and “roadworx.in”. Further, it emerged that the “trading styles “ROADworx”/Autostadt” and “Nummer Eins” were being used in relation to car maintenance services being operated in and around Mumbai. 5 On December 17, 2008, being aggrieved by the aforesaid unehical, unprofessional and dishonest practise of the defendant, the second plaintiff called upon the defendant to, inter alia, refrain from unauthorisedly using the trade marks of the first plaintiff vide its letter dated December 17, 2008. Inspite the said letter the defendant not only continued its unauthorised use of plaintiff No.1’s trade marks but also commenced representing itself as the “Authorised Dealer” of the plaintiffs. 6 The averments made in the Notice of Motion with supporting material and documents remained un-controverted till this date. 7 Considering the averments made in the plaint along with the documents and also affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have made out a case for grant injunction/interim order as all relevant elements as contemplated under the Trade Marks Act, Copyright Act and other elements under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are available. The plaintiffs rights have also been supported by various material and documents on record which, as noted, remained un-controverted. 4 8 Resultantly, the Notice of Motion is allowed in terms of prayers (a) to (d) with liberty. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)