Bangalore District Court
2. It Is The Case In The Plaint That vs Use Of The Plaintiff'S Design And ... on 26 September, 2022
KABC170112242020
IN THE COURT OF LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-86)
(Commercial Court)
THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT:
SMT. LATHAKUMARI M.
M.A., LL.M.,
LXXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019
BETWEEN:
Essity Hygiene and Health
Aktiebolag (Formerly known as SCA
Hygiene Products) a company
organized and existing under the
laws of Sweden and having its office
at SE-405 03, Goteborg, Sweden
Through its Constituted Attorney Mr.
Vijeykumar Subramanian
:PLAINTIFF
(Represented by Sri. Joseph
Anthony - Advocate)
AND
York Cellulose Private Limited
a company existing and incorporated
under the Companies Act 2013 and
2
Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019
having its office at #5 Jindal Nagar,
Next to Jindal Alluminium Ltd,
Chikkabidarakallu,
Bangalore - 560 073
Also having office at:
215, HSIDC, Industrial Estate
Manakpur Jagadhari Haryana - 135003
Also having office at:
545-Model Town,
Yamuna Nagar, Haryana - 135001
: DEFENDANT
(Represented by Sri. Harikrishna
Pramod - Advocate)
Date of Institution of the 02.04.2019
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on Suit for Permanent
pronote, suit for Injunction
declaration & Possession, (Intellectual Property
Suit for injunction etc.) Rights)
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence 13.12.2021
Date on which judgment 26.09.2022
was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 05 24
(LATHAKUMARI M.),
LXXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
3
Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff in which the plaintiff has sued for Permanent Injunction restraining infringement of its registered trademark "Tork" and for restraining defendant from passing of its goods/end plug of towel dispensing cabinet/toilet paper, as that of the plaintiff.
2. It is the case in the plaint that, defendant has filed application in clause 16 & 21 before Registrar of Trademark, New Delhi for Registration of the Mark "York" which is deceptively similar to plaintiff's trademark "Tork". Further defendant is manufacturing selling and offering for sale towel dispensing cabinet/toilet paper consisting of 'Endplug' which according to plaintiff is deceptively similar to his product. Said end-plug design used by plaintiff in respect of toilet paper/ towel dispensing cabinet for dispensing towel is the registered design of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has mention his product photos and defendant's product photo at para-23 of his plaint. The plaint asserts that, this act of the defendant i.e., offering for sale towel dispensing cabinet/toilet paper dispensing unit consisting of 'endplug' which according to plaintiff is deceptively 4 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 similar to their registered 'endplug' design". The plaintiff asserts that this act of the defendant constitutes an infringement of his trade mark rights and design. As in spite of lawyers' notice that defendant persisted in manufacturing, selling and using the 'endplug' complained of with regard to his toilet paper/towel dispensing cabinet and also the word 'York'. It is the plaintiff's further case that ever since his adoption in the year 1991, the "Tork" trademarks have been used openly, continuously, extensively and exclusively by the plaintiff in respect of his several products including toilet paper, paper hand towels, napkins, hand soap, lotion dispensers, hygiene products etc. The plaintiff in para-14 of its plaint has mentioned, statements of sales and also stated about promotional expenses ever since inception and 2018. The approximate sale attained during 2006-13 were about six crore and 2014 - 11.25 crores, 2015 - 15 crores, 2016-18 - 75 crores, 2017 - 15 crores and 2018 - 7.5 crores. Besides plaintiff claimed that advertisement expenses incurred during 2014 to 18 were over 3.9 crores. It is further claimed that apart from use as a trademark the word "Tork" has came to be associated with the Corporate identity of plaintiff and extensively sold in India under the 5 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 registered Trade mark "Tork" and whose website is www.torkglobal.com, www.tork.in, www.torkmeia.com and www.essity.com. The plaintiff claims to have thus acquired tremendous goodwill and reputation not only in India but universally. It is plaintiff's greivience that in the month of September 2018 plaintiff learnt of the defendant's use of marks called "York", York Cellulose Private Ltd., etc., containing as his essential feature the word "York" and that these marks are identical with or deceptively similar to the Tork trademark of plaintiff. The word 'York' has been used by the defendant to establish a false nexus with the plaintiff business and also defendant is manufacturing the 'endplug' designed by plaintiff. Defendant's use of the plaintiff's design and deceptively similar trademark and making attempts to pass of its goods as those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has thus pray for Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their promoters, assignees etc., from infringing the plaintiff design i.e., 'endplug' in towel dispensing cabinet and trademark 'Tork' and from applying or obtaining registration before competent authority of the word 'York' and for such other consequential relief/s and to deliver all the goods labels as any other printed material bearing the 6 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 impugned mark 'York' and for transferring the domain name www.yorkcellulose.com to the plaintiff and to furnish accounts of profits earned by them by using name York and invoices and sales figures to this court or any person nominated by this court with cost and such other reliefs as this court may deem appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The defendant who appeared through his counsel filed his written statement asserting that plaintiff has not made out any cause of action against the defendant. The defendant is a private limited company leading manufacturer and supplier of toilet paper rolls, mini jumbo toilet rolls, napkins, towels, facial tissue, kitchen towels, floor stand rolls, garage rolls etc. He sells its products under the name and style "YORK" in a specific designs/ labels and logo having immense reputation in the market and using its website www.yorkcellulose.com since 28.07.2008. The defendant commenced its business in 2005 and using the said trademark "YORK" continuously since 2008 and in India since 2013. The defendant also mentioned its sales statistics in para-6 of his written statement from 2008-09 to 2017-18 and contended that as per the said statistics he has sold goods worth over 7 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 128,08,54,219 till date using its distinctive trademark and logo "YORK". It is further mentioned that on 08.06.2016 in class 16 and on 02.08.2016 in class 21 he applied for the registration of its trademark 'York' and the said applications are pending before Trademarks Registry. The trademarks in question are phonetically distinctive with a different font and label design. He has also mentioned that the design and label used by plaintiff and himself for comparison in para-8 of his written statement. It is further contended that the purchasers in question being educated executives of corporate entities, there stands no chance of confusing the defendant's goods bearing the trademark 'YORK' with those of the plaintiff bearing the trademark 'Tork'. Defendant further asserts that, he has no office at Jindal Nagar, next to Jindal Aluminium Limited, Chikkabidarakallu, Bengaluru as mentioned in the cause title. Though the defendants supplied its goods and service in Bengaluru it does not operate out of the address provided in the cause title by the plaintiff. The plaintiff ought to have instituted the suit at Haryana and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. It is specifically mentioned that, defendant does not manufacture dispensers but rather procures them from 8 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 other manufacturers, including the plaintiff and supplies them along with their own toilet paper rolls. The defendant procured certain such dispensers from the plaintiff in the year 2018. However, the said dispensers came without the 'endplug' which is essential for the function of dispensing paper rolls. Therefore, he was constrained to identify the manufacturer and produce 'endplugs' that fit the said dispensers and supplied the same to its clients. He is not manufacturing a dispenser with a design identical to that of the plaintiff. He continuously used trademark 'York' in its present design label and stylize logo since the commencement of its business and still using the same by its products in India. The plaintiff has reportedly wound up its business in India. In view thereof, there is no scope of the defendant's use of the mark 'York' diluting or causing damage to the plaintiff's mark as alleged. There is no evidence, prima facie or otherwise to show that the intention behind the use of the design and trade name 'York' is to confuse, deceive and mislead the general public as contended by the plaintiff. The design, label and logo used by plaintiff and defendant are phonetically and visually distinct from each other. The defendant is an established manufacturer 9 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 and seller of hygiene products in India with its own reputation and goodwill in the market which are represented by its distinct trademark 'York'. At para-31 of its written statement, it is mentioned that, the defendant does not manufacture towel dispenser cabinet and therefore there is no question of infringing upon the plaintiff's alleged design in respect of the same. Under such circumstances question of plaintiff suffering either monetarily or by way of reputation and goodwill does not arise. Hence, prays to dismiss this suit with exemplary costs.
4. Based on these pleadings, this court framed the following Issues and additional issues: -
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the mark YORK used by defendant is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark TORK?
2) Whether the defendant proves that there is no phonetic resemblance in the words TORK and YORK and thereby, there is no possibility of anyone being deceived by the two marks?
3) What order or decree?10
Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 Additional Issues:
1) Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Defendant has infringed and is passing off the Plaintiff's registered design of the "Towel Dispensing Cabinet/Eng Plug?
2) Whether plaintiff establishes that the defendant is liable to transfer the domain name www.yorkcellulose.com in his favour?
5. On behalf of plaintiff, its authorized signatory got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked as many as 18 documents in support of plaintiff's claim as per Ex.P1 to P18. In the cross-examination of PW.1 defendant got confronted ten documents as per Ex.D1 to D10 and further got examined its authorized representative Santhosh R as DW.1. Further got marked another 12 documents in further chief-examination of DW.1 as per Ex.D11 to D22.
6. I have carefully scrutinized entire records before me. Heard arguments and also perused the list of authorities produced by respective counsels.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:
11Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative Issue No.2 :- In the Negative Issue No.3 : - As per the final Order for the following reasons.
Addl. Issue No.1: - In the Negative Addl. Issue No.2: - In the Negative REASONS
8. Issue No.1 & 2:- These two issues are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
The learned counsel for defendant canvassed before this court that, PW.1 during his cross-examination has given evidence that plaintiff is doing its business through distributors and purchasers are corporate sectors and there is no chance of either distributors or educated executives of corporate entities being confused with the defendant's goods bearing the trademark 'York' with that of the plaintiff's trademark 'Tork'. It is further mentioned that the word 'Tork' of the plaintiff found with logo and so also the word 'York' of the defendant and that apart defendant in his logo using it as York cellulose and not York in isolation. Further submitted that, Plaintiff's 12 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 distributors being exclusively distributing the products of the plaintiff, they will not certainly distribute the products of defendant. On the other hand, learned counsel for plaintiff contended that, plaintiff's mark is well known mark and the word 'York' used by the defendant is phonetically similar to that of his trademark 'Tork' and thereby his trademark requires protection from this court by way of Permanent Injunction. No doubt in the cross- examination of PW.1 dated 14.03.2022, PW.1 has deposed that plaintiff is having around 300 distributors all over India and they are exclusively appointed to deal with the plaintiff's product. It is further elicited that individual person can approach website of the plaintiff company online or plaintiff's distributors directly to purchase plaintiff's product and in either of the case, distributors will supply the product to the individual. It is further elicited that plaintiff is doing business through distributors and none of the distributors or plaintiff's client have complained at any point of time that they purchased defendant's product under confusion thinking that it is plaintiff's product, instead of purchasing the plaintiff's product. Whether these evidence of PW.1 is of any help to defendant in a suit for design and trademark infringement 13 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 is a point to be considered at this stage. As I have already stated, the learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that there is a similarity between the plaintiff's and defendant's mark visually and phonetically and there is an imitation of their trademark 'Tork' by the defendant who is using the word 'York'. It is not in dispute that both Plaintiff and Defendant are dealing with hygiene related products. With regard to registration of the plaintiff's trademark 'Tork'. Plaintiff has produced certified copy of trademark registration document as per Ex.P11. It is also not in dispute that defendant's registration of trademark i.e., 'York' is still pending consideration before concerned registry and plaintiffs have already raised their objection. A registered trademark is said to be infringed if a person not being the registered proprietor of such trademark uses in the course of business which is identical with or deceptively similar to the trademark of registered user. When the trademark of the defendant is identical with the registered trademark of the plaintiff and that the goods or services of the defendant are identical with the goods or services covered by the registered trademark, the court can presume that it is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public. In an action for infringement, no doubt the 14 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 plaintiff must make out that the use of the defendant's mark is likely to deceive but where the similarity between the plaintiffs and defendants mark is so close either visually, phonetically or otherwise which probabalizes that there is an imitation, no further evidence is required to establish that the plaintiff's rights are violated. In other words, if the essential features of trademark of the plaintiff have been adopted by the defendant, the fact that the get-up, packing and other writing or marks on the goods or on the pockets in which he offers his goods for sale, show marked differences, or indicate clearly a trade origin different from that of the registered proprietor of the mark would be immaterial. An action for passing off being an action for deceit, whereas the action for infringement is a statutory right conferred on the registered proprietor of a registered mark as an exclusive rights to the use of the trademark in relation to his goods. Further, the action for infringement being a statutory right, no case of actual deception nor any actual damage needs to be proved by the plaintiff in such cases. Where the defendant's trademark is identical with the plaintiff's trademark, there is necessary for this court to enquire whether the infringement is such as is likely to deceive or 15 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 cause confusion. It is further to be noted that, the words 'Tork' and 'York' are phonetically as well as visually similar. Sub-section 9 of Sec. 29 of the Trademarks Act provides that, where the distinctive element trademark consist of or include words, the trademark may be infringed by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual representation. As such, the use of the word 'York' which is phonetically and visually similar to 'Tork' would also be an act of infringement in view of sub-Section 9 of Section 29 of the Act. The learned counsel for defendant placed its reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Cadila Healthcare Limited vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and contended that in an action for passing off, the class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods bearing the marks they require, on their education and intelligence and a degree of care they are likely to exercise in purchasing and/ or using the goods becomes a major factor to be considered by this court. In this case, it could be seen that plaintiff was using the trademark 'ultratech' whereas the defendant mark was 'dalmia ultra'. The visual appearance of these two marks are different and that apart, they are not even similar phonetically. Hence, the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this 16 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 citation is not of much help to defendant. Further, defendant placed his reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Diago North America, Inc and Ors., vs. Shiva Distributors Ltd., The marks before Hon'ble Delhi High Court was SMIR & BRIS. Even there is no similarity between these two words. In order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, it is not necessary that they should be placed side by side to find out if there are any differences in the design and if so, whether they are of such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken for the other and it is enough if the impugned mark bears such an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead a person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him. Defendant has mentioned in his written statement at para-8, both trademarks for comparison. Further, in the cross-examination of DW.1, defendant got confronted certain documents. In its own document Ex.D3 the word 'York' used is similar to that of the plaintiff's mark 'Tork'. By seeing the plaintiff's trademark mentioned in para-8 of the written statement along with the name 'York' available at Ex.D3(a) one can make out that the mark of defendant bears an overall 17 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 similarity with that of the plaintiff's trademark. If one is not careful enough to note the peculiar features of the label on both the products, any one may easily mistake with identification. There is no doubt that the word 'York' used by defendant in its product is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark which is registered. The concept and principle on which passing-off action is based on the principle that a man is not to sell his own goods under the pretends that they are the goods of another man. A trader needs protection of his right of prior user of a trademark as the benefit of the name and reputation earned by him cannot be taken advantage of by another trader by copying the mark and by getting it registered. Further, in an action for passing off it does not matter whether deception or misrepresentation has proceeded from a registered or an unregistered user of a trademark. He cannot represent his own goods as the goods of somebody else. In the case on hand, admittedly defendant has filed his application for registration of trademark 'York' which is pending consideration as per Ex.D14 under clause (16) itself. In this document, the date of application is shown as 08.06.2016. Whereas, plaintiff has produced certified copy of the trademark registration 18 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 for his trademark 'TORK' as per Ex.P11 which is at Ink Page 94, registration date is shown as 09.07.1997. These documents establishes that plaintiff is the prior user of the name 'Tork' and defendant's trademark 'York' is not only in the process of consideration, whereas defendant filed for registration in 2016 i.e., 19 years later to the commencement of user by the plaintiff. Thus the defendant by using the trade mark 'York' has prima facie infringed the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'Tork' within the meaning of Sec.29 (1) of the Trade Marks Act. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative and Issue No.2 in the Negative.
9. Additional Issue No.1: - It is the contention of plaintiff that defendant is making use of his design i.e., 'endplug' used in towel dispensing cabinet. To substantiate the same however plaintiff has not produced his product and also alleged product of defendant before this court for comparison. On the other hand defendant has produced two documents as per Ex.D.18 and D.19 to establish that he is purchasing the said endplug from various purchasers including plaintiff's distributors whenever necessary. These two documents were not disputed by the plaintiff. Except self statement of 19 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 plaintiff there is no cogent material produced before this court to establish that defendant is manufacturing the endplug by using the design of plaintiff. Further during the cross examination of PW1 defendant got marked Ex.D.4 to D.8. PW1 further admits in page 7 of his cross- examination that the inside mechanism in all of towel dispenser present in Ex.D4 to D8 are having different designs. He also admits that the purpose of using endplug in dispenser unit is to reduce the consumption of paper. Further PW1 categorically admits in his cross- examination that, even with regard to tissue dispenser available in the market they may also use such endplugs in their dispenser which perform similar function. He also admits that there is no document to establish that the endplug design has been registered exclusively. Further under Ex.P.10 produced by plaintiff what is registered is, towel dispensing cabinet. PW1 in page 8 of his cross- examination admits that, there is no separate design registered only for endplug. Further at page 10 PW1 deposes that he is not personally aware whether defendant manufactures the endplug or not. Further he also deposes that, he is not personally aware any such endplug sold by defendant to others. These version of 20 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 PW1 in his cross-examination makes it clear that, there is no proof available with the plaintiff for using the endplug design of plaintiff by defendant. That apart there is no copyright available to the plaintiff exclusively in respect of endplug. Rather endplug being part of towel dispensing unit, there is no design right available to plaintiff only in respect of endplug. Accordingly I have answered this issue in the negative.
10. Additional Issue No.2: Apart from seeking equitable remedy of permanent injunction against defendant with regard to his trade mark plaintiff also pray for transfer of the domain name of the defendant to the plaintiff. However, plaintiff has not adduce any evidence in this regard. Even otherwise plaintiff can always approach concerned registration authority for getting transfer the registered trade mark in its name in the office of the Registrar. Accordingly I have answered this issue also in the negative.
11. Issue No.3: No doubt plaintiff has filed his objection before concerned Registrar for registration of trade mark application filed by defendant and same is pending consideration by the registrar of trademarks. However, 21 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 the dishonest persons cannot be allowed to make use of the said trademark in order to get themselves illegally enriched earning upon the reputation built-up using the trademark by the concerned person in interest. While considering issue No.1 and 2 this court has come to the conclusion that, the defendant by using the trade mark 'York' has prima facie infringed the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'Tork' within the meaning of Sec.29 (1) of the Trade Marks Act. The prior user will have edge over the later. That apart plaintiff having entered into the business much earlier to the defendant and also having registered his trademark 'Tork' will be put to irreparable injury if defendant is not restrained from using his trademark 'York' which is phonetically similar to the plaintiff's trademark. Accordingly and also in view of my findings on Issues and additional issues No.1 and 2 I proceed to pass the following Order.
ORDER The Suit filed by the plaintiff for perpetual injunction against defendant from infringement of plaintiff's trademark 'Tork', for infringement of plaintiff's 22 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 design i.e., endplug (used in towel dispenser unit) and to transfer the domain name of defendant to the plaintiff and for other consequential relief is partly decreed with cost.
The defendant, their promoters, assignees, successors-in-interest, lincensees, franchises, partners, representatives, servants, distributors,
employees, agents etc., are permanently restrained from infringing the plaintiff's trademark 'Tork' by using the word 'York' or those which are identical or deceptively similar to such word in relation to defendant's any goods or services or business.
Plaintiff's prayer for permanent
injunction against defendant towards
23
Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019
infringement of design and also for
transfer of defendant's domain name to plaintiff are rejected.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26th day of September, 2022).
(LATHAKUMARI M.), LXXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PLAINTIFF
PW.1 Vijeykumar Subramanian
LIST OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the Power of Attorney Ex.P.2 Notarized copy of the extract of the Swedish Companies Registration Office.
Ex.P.3 Copy of the webpage of the Defendant obtained from its website 24 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 Ex.P.4 Copies of the relevant pages of the website of the Plaintiff showing the appreciation awarded to the Plaintiff.
Ex.P.5 Copies of the whois.com page establishing ownership of domain names/websites Ex.P.6 Copies of the import invoices of some of the distributors of the Plaintiff.
Ex.P.7 Copies of the invoices raised to the Plaintiff's customers.
Ex.P.8 Copies of few invoices, bills and pictures of the of marketing, promotion and advertising campaigns of the Plaintiff Ex.P.9 Printouts of the awards and media coverage of the Plaintiff Ex.P.10 Certified copy of the legal use certificate issued by the Controller of patents and Designs along with the notarized copy of the request made for name change.
Ex.P.11 Certified copy of the trademark registration for the trade mark TORK issued by the Indian Trademark Office along with the printouts of the trademark office online status page of other trademark registrations.
Ex.P.12 Copies of all the Registrations of Plaintiff's trademark applications in countries other than India.
Ex.P.13 Images of the products of the Defendant Ex.P.14 Copy of the cease and Desist notice dated:
18.10.2018 Ex.P.15 Copy of reminder notice dated: 05.11.2018.25
Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 Ex.P.16 Copy of the legal response issued by Defendant to the cease and Desist notice of the Plaintiff. Ex.P.17 A copy of the invoice evidencing the business of the Defendant and the copy of the online records of the Goods and Service Tax evidencing the registration of the Defendant's GSTIN at Bangalore.
Ex.P.18 Certificate filed U/sec. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT DW.1 Santhosh R LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Ex.D1 Find Distributor Ex.D2 Around 20 products Ex.D3 Products Ex.D4 Hand Town Roll Dispenser Ex.D5 Images of website Ex.D6 Images of website Ex.D7 & 2 documents of website D8 Ex.D9 End Plug Ex.D10 Plaintiff's TORK hand towel roll dispenser Ex.D.11 Computer generated company master data 26 Com. O.S. No. 2637/2019 pertaining to the defendant, as shown on the Ministry of Corporate Affairs website. Ex.D.12 Print out of the aforesaid website details from the Whois Domain search.
Ex.D.13 Balance sheet of defendant private limited as on 31.03.2006, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019.
Ex.D.14 Printouts of the application status and form TM-1 filed by the defendant - 5 pages in all. Ex.D.15 Printout of the word mark search report for the word YORK in both clause 16 and 21.
Ex.D.16 Printout of the article dated 24.12.2016. Ex.D.17 List of defendants clients in India. Ex.D.18 Copies of invoices in respect of purchases of the plaintiff's dispenser by the defendant - 10 pages in all.
Ex.D.19 Tax invoice of Rising solis.
Ex.D.20 Certificate u/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Ex.D.21 Copies of invoices in respect of purchase of plaintiff dispenser by the defendant.
Ex.D.22 Copies of invoices in respect of purchase of dispenser of other manufacturers by the defendant.
(LATHAKUMARI M.), LXXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.