Delhi District Court
M/S Jindal Industries Ltd vs M/S Jindal Trade Linkers on 28 July, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI MAN MOHAN SHARMA
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL) 1
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
T M No.: 24/2011
Unique case ID no. : 02401C5801432004
M/s Jindal Industries Ltd.
Delhi Road, Model Town,
Hisar125 005 (Haryana)
..........Plaintiff
Versus
M/s Jindal Trade Linkers
4787/30Sumi Market,
Phatak Namak, Hauz Qazi,
Delhi110 006
.........Defendant
Date of institution of case : 12.06.1995
Date of reserving judgment : 21.07.2012
Date of pronouncement : 28.07.2012
JUDGMENT
1 This is a suit for permanent injunction and restraining the infringement of trademark, trading style, passing off trade mark and damages etc. filed by plaintiff against defendant. 2 Briefly stated, the facts of the case are:
(i). The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 1 of 25 2 provisions of the Indian Companies Act 1956, having its registered office at Delhi Road, Model Town, Hisar125005 (Haryana). Sh. B. B. Pardhan, is the General Manager of the plaintiff is competent and authorised to sign, verify, institute, depose and prosecute the present suit for and on behalf of the plaintiff.
(ii). The plaintiff is an established manufacturer and traders of Galavanised Iron Pipes and Tubes and fittings thereof since the year 1961, at Delhi Road, Model Town, Hissar125 005 (Haryana). Since the year 1961 the plaintiffs have been using the trade mark "JINDAL" with the device of map of India in relation to their aforesaid goods openly, regularly; continuously; extensively and exclusively without the interruption from any one.
(iii). The plaintiffs are registered owners and proprietors of the impugned trade mark "Jindal" and label entitled "Jindal" in respect of their aforesaid goods under no. 384816 of the date dated 31.12.1981 in class6 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, advertised in the Trade Marks Journal no.959 of the date 16.05.1989 at page no. 217 claiming user since the year 1961, under the Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, which T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 2 of 25 3 registration has been renewed from time to time and the same is still valid, existing and subsisting as on this day.
(iv). The plaintiffs are also the registered owners and proprietors of the artistic work in the label entitled "Jindal" within the map of India in respect of their aforesaid goods under no. A36949/82 of the date 31.05.1982, under the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957, and as such the plaintiffs are the first adopters, originators and authors of the aforesaid artistic label/mark since the year 1961.
(v). The plaintiffs are also the owners and proprietors of the trade mark "Jindal" with the device of the map of India in relation to their goods of PVC pipes and tubes and fittings thereof, which mark they have been suing openly and exclusively and with a view to protect their interest the plaintiffs have already applied for the registration thereof under no. 588702 in class 17, which is proceeding for registration and the plaintiffs expect that the same will son be advertised in the trade marks journal and thereafter necessary registration certificate will be issued by the learned trade marks registry in due course of time.
T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 3 of 254
(vi). The goods of the plaintiffs are manufactured in accordance with the Essential Commodities Act (Quality Control Product) because they affect the consumers.
(vii). The plaintiffs' goods under the impugned trade mark "Jindal" with the device of the map of India, are being manufactured strictly in accordance with the specifications of the ISI and as such they registered as such under no. Cm/L4587 of the dated 22.08.1975 and Cm/I6410 dated 20.09.1977 with the aforesaid Government Authority and, therefore, the same are marked as ISI which clearly proves the superior and highstandard quality of goods of the plaintiffs.
(viii). The plaintiffs are one of the leading concerns of the country and their goods are supplied to various Government Departments including the Director General of Supplies and Disposal on account of superior and highstandard quality of goods manufactured by the plaintiffs.
(ix). With a view to protect the trade mark "Jindal" with the device of the map of India, the plaintiffs from time to time have been issuing Trade Mark caution notices in various newspapers, trade magazines etc. for the T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 4 of 25 5 information of the general public and the traders.
(x). The plaintiffs have been regularly, continuously, openly, regularly, continuously; extensively and exclusively using the fanciful trade mark "Jindal" with the device of the map of India in relation to their Galvanished Iron and PVC pipes and tubes and the fittings thereof, which goods of the plaintiffs are being sold throughout the length and breadth of the country as also exported to several countries of the world, being superior and highstandard quality of goods.
(xi). The plaintiff have widely advertised their aforesaid trade mark "Jindal" with the device of the map of India in relation to the aforesaid goods through various medias of advertisement and publicity with the result the same are sold in the market by the name and with reference to their trade mark and the device of the map of India. In fact, the purchasing public asks and demands the pipes and tubes as "Jindal Pipes" "Jindal Tubes" and so on.
(xii). On account of continuously, regular and extensive use of the said trade mark "Jindal" with the device of the map of India in respect of their aforesaid goods the same has come to be associated with the name of the plaintiffs T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 5 of 25 6 and none else. people in trade as well as the general public consider the said goods of the plaintiffs under the said goods of the plaintiffs under the said trade mark and the device of the map of India as the standard quality of goods, the plaintiffs have built up huge goodwill and reputation in the minds of the purchasing public and the traders in relation to their aforesaid gods and they are known and recognized and identified by them as the excellent quality of goods of the plaintiffs under the impugned trade mark/label entitled "Jindal" along with the device of the map of India.
(xiii). The public and the trade demands, recognises and purchases the said goods of the plaintiffs due to their high and standard quality by name and with reference to the said trade mark/label entitled "Jindal" which is exclusively associated with the plaintiffs in the minds of the purchasing public and the trade and they purchase the said goods under the impugned trade mark as a guarantee of the plaintiffs excellent manufacture and the said trade mark is prominent displayed on the bill books calendars, post cards pamphlets etc. to such an extent that the plaintiffs feel confident in stating, people take it T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 6 of 25 7 guarantee that the aforesaid trade mark/label device of the map of India belongs to the plaintiffs alone.
(xiv). The plaintiffs have given wide publicity to their trade mark "JINDAL" and the said goods under the impugned trade mark connotes it and noneelse. The plaintiffs' sale in respect of the aforesaid goods under the impugned trade mark "JINDAL" run in crores of rupees annually as per statement showing the annual sale figures of the plaintiffs.
(xv). The plaintiffs have taken much pains to popularize its trade mark with the device of the map of India and have incurred huge amount on its advertisement and publicity. The trade mark "JINDAL" and its label entitled "JINDAL" along with the device of the map of India in round in respect of the aforesaid goods duly registered in their favour on account of its open, regular; continuous; extensive and exclusive use since 1961, coupled with the country by different ways of publicity and advertisements including newspapers etc. has acquired secondary meaning and distinctiveness so much so that the said trade mark has come about to be exclusively identified and recognized with the said goods of the plaintiff T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 7 of 25 8 manufacture alone and noneelse.
(xvi) Since the plaintiffs are the honest and bonafide owners and proprietors of their registered trade mark "JINDAL" and its artistic work in the label entitled "JINDAL" in relation to the aforesaid products viz. Galvanised Iron Pipes and tubes and fittings thereof, they have acquired legal and lawful rights to restrain a person/firm/company from using a trade mark which is identical with and/or deceptively similar to the registered trade "JINDAL" in relation to cognate; allied; associate and connected goods as it is bound to cause confusion and/or deception in the minds of the unwary class of purchasers as such goods manufactured by other persons belong to the plaintiffs on account of which the plaintiffs are bound to suffer substantial loss; injury and damage to their well established business; goodwill and reputation, which they have been able to build after putting hard labour and after incurring huge expenses on its publicity and advertisement and as such the plaintiffs have acquired exclusive right to sue the impugned trade mark "JINDAL" as per the law applicable. The use of any identical with and/or deceptively similar mark without T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 8 of 25 9 the written assent and consent of the plaintiffs in relation to similar nature and description of goods amounts to falsification of the plaintiffs genuine and reputed trade mark and the same is bound to cause confusion and /or deception in the course of trade and in the minds of unwary class of purchasers having imperfect recollection who are generally villagers, farmers, agriculturists, mechanics, laborers and general public from all walks of life.
(xvi). It was only on 21st of June 1995, that the plaintiffs came to know from the market that the defendants have started manufacturing and marketing of PVC pipes and tubes under the trade mark "JINDAL", which is a clear and flagrant violation of the legal vested rights of the plaintiffs in their wellknown and wellestablished trade mark "JINDAL". The defendant have not only pirated the registered trade mark "JINDAL" in elation to similar nature and description of goods, but have simultaneously adopted and conceived the impugned trade mark "JINDAL" in their trading style as well. Since the goods of the plaintiffs and the defendants are similar in nature and description and used for the same purposes i.e. flow T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 9 of 25 10 of water viz. PVC pipes and tubes under the same trade mark "JINDAL" the defendants have further been passing off their spurious and substandard quality of goods of the plaintiffs.
(xvii).The goods of the defendants and the plaintiffs are sold in Delhi besides in many other parts of the country the defendants have been wellaware of the goodwill and reputation of the trade mark "JINDAL" of the plaintiffs in relation of Galvansied iron pipes and tubes and the fittings thereof, but, they have dishonestly and malafidely pirated the trade mark "JINDAL" of the plaintiffs and as such they (defendants) are guilty of:
(a). Infringement of the trade mark "JINDAL" of the plaintiffs;
(b). Adoption of their trading style as "JINDAL" Trade Linkers using the registered trade mark "JINDAL" of the plaintiffs;
(c). Passing of trade mark;
(xviii). The defendants have been trading upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs which they have built after putting hard labour and after incurring huge amount on its publicity and advertisement for the last T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 10 of 25 11 more than three decades. The aforesaid trade activities of the defendants are illegal and unlawful besides being deliberate with the ulterior object of earning huge profits in these mischievous manners. The goods of both the plaintiffs and the defendants are sold to similar class of purchasers, are sold by the same traders at the same shops having the same outlets; they are displayed at the same counters and show cases being similar nature and description, therefore, the plaintiffs have and/or have been suffering loss; injury and damages in their well known and well established business; goodwill and reputation and further damages to the trade, business, goodwill and reputation are inevitable to be caused to the plaintiffs unless the defendants are restrained immediately by an injunction order from infringement of the trade mark JINDAL of the plaintiffs from using the trading style with the word JINDAL as also from passing off their goods under the infringed trade mark JINDAL. It is submitted that the pecuniary compensation will not afford the plaintiffs adequate relief as if the goodwill and reputation which the plaintiffs have gained by taking so much pains during the last so many years if lost, would T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 11 of 25 12 not be regained by money. In the facts and circumstances, an order for injunction restraining the defendants from using the trade mark JINDAL and their trading style with the word JINDAL and also passing off the trade mark JINDAL or any other trade mark, which may be identical with and / or deceptively similar to the registered trade mark in respect of the aforesaid goods, is the only appropriate remedy to meet the ends of justice. (xix). By using the Trade Mark JINDAL, the defendant is causing a great loss and irreparable injury, each day and every hour. Since the said use in causing loss not only to the plaintiff but amounts to cheating the public at large and therefore there is an urgency of injunction against the defendant immediately. More over the plaintiff has come to know about the illegal trade activities of the defendants only on 20.06.1995.
(xx). The defendants being guilty of offending the registered trade mark, trading style and passing off the trade mark bypassing off their spurious substandard quality of goods as and for the superior and high standards quality of goods of the plaintiffs are liable to pay damages. The defendants are further liable to pay T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 12 of 25 13 damages on account of causing irreparable loss and injury to the trade, goodwill and reputation, which the plaintiffs have established after taking much pains and putting hard labour for years together and also by incurring huge amount on its publicity and advertisement. The plaintiffs expect a sum of Rs. 5,01,000/ as the damages because of the detailed reasons stated hereinabove.
3. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement taking the plea of limitation; the plaintiff not approaching the court with clean hands and the defendant being a user of the trade mark 'Jindal' since 1981 in respect of PVC and Rubber flexible pipes and tubes since 1981. The defendant also objected the plaint not having been signed or verified by a competent person on behalf of plaintiff. The suit is stated to be malafide.
3. On merits the defendant denied the material averments of the plaint which constitute the cause of action of the plaintiff and pressed the following facts in service:
(i). The defendant has been using its trade mark "JINDAL" since 1981 in respect of the PVC and rubber flexible pipes and tubes. In 1987 the answering respondent has filed an application for registration of its trade mark before the Trade Mark Registry. The trade T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 13 of 25 14 mark of the answering defendant has also been advertised in accordance with law in the Trade Mark Journal on 16/05/95. The plaintiff is aware of the aforesaid. The plaintiff has also filed its opposition before the Trade Mark Registry which has been registered as DEL9553.
However, the plaintiff has deliberately filed this malafide suit without disclosing the aforesaid. The suit of the plaintiff is, therefore, liable to be stayed for the purpose the answering defendant has filed a separate application in accordance with law.
(ii). The trade mark of the plaintiff is registered only in respect of galvanized iron pipes and tubes. The said mark contains the name Jindal with an oval device encircling and map to India in the middle as can be seen from the document filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has never made or dealt in the PVC and Rubber Hose Pipes. On the other hand the answering defendant has been dealing in PVC and Rubber Hose Pipes since 1981. The answering defendant has never dealt with galvanised iron pipes and tubes. Besides this the defendant presently rarely dealing in even the PVC and Rubber Hose Pipes and the answering defendant is presently dealing only in fire and T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 14 of 25 15 safety equipments. Thus the answering defendant had been a prior user of the word 'Jindal' than the plaintiff in relation to the specific goods. Besides this the trade mark of the answering defendant is distinctly different from that of the plaintiff in as much as the trade mark of the plaintiff contains the word 'Jindal' written in small letters and a device of map of India encircled in oval device with word "Trade" at upper and "Mark" at lower side of the oval device. Whereas in case of the answering defendant the trade mark is distinctly distinguished and consists of the words 'JTL' in circular device with trading style i.e. Jindal Trade Linker and term " air hose pipes" the word JINDAL in capital letter with all these items in a rectangular device peculiarly arranged. In fact conscious efforts has been made by the answering defendant to incorporate the name of the trading style etc. as well as so as to properly and honestly convey to the public purchasing the goods that the same belong to the answering defendant and none else. The term Jindal is a surname very common in the case to which the partners of the answering defendant belong. Jindal, in fact, is 'GOTRA'. The trade mark of the answering defendant, T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 15 of 25 16 therefore, is totally distinct and distinctive from that of the plaintiff and in no manner can any member of public be misled by the trade mark of the answering defendant.
(iii). It is the contention of the plaintiff that it came to know about the defendant using the said trade mark on 20.06.95. The allegation of the plaintiff is perse wrong and incorrect. It is submitted that the defendant, as aforesaid has been using the said trade mark and trading style since 1981. In fact the name of the answering defendant distinctly appears in the directory of 15000 Indian Manufacturer Exporters and Suppliers, in which even the name of the plaintiff also exist. Besides the others, name of both the plaintiff and the answering defendant also exist in the directory issued by MTNL. It is further submitted that the shop of the answering defendant is in Hauz Qazi, Phatak Namak. Toward inside has been the shop namely P.L. Gupta & Sons, who has been the authorised dealer/agent of the plaintiff company, ever since the defendant started its shop. Many officers etc. from the plaintiff company visited the said dealer in so many years and have noticed the shop of the defendant. The plaintiff therefore, has deliberately made T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 16 of 25 17 wrong statement. In fact the plaintiff has full knowledge of the answering defendant using its said trade mark in respect of PVC and Rubber flexible hose pipes and tubes since 1981 and the plaintiff has curiously acquiesced to the user thereof by the answering defendant over the years. The plaintiff has only taken up a false plea to defeat (though unsuccessfully) the application for registration filed by the answering defendant.
(iv). The name Jindal is very common and if one was to see through any director, hundred of establishment beginning with or containing the said word Jindal would be found. It is a very common part of trading style in many industries and establishments. The plaintiff therefore, even otherwise in law cannot be allowed to claim exclusive right over the general word. Suit of the plaintiff from all angles therefore, is devoid of any cause of action, is not maintainable and hence liable to be rejected.
4. Vide the minutes of proceedings dated 24.10.2007, the defendant has been proceeded as exparte and has not joined the proceedings thereafter.
5. Plaintiff examined Sh. Parahlad Rai Bansal as PW1 who had T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 17 of 25 18 tendered in its oral evidence. As documentary evidence the witness tendered Ex.PW1/1 which is minutes of meeting dated 03.10.2006; Ex.PW1/2 which is Registration certificate; Ex.PW1/3 which is Legal Proceeding Certificate; Ex.PW1/4 which is copy right certificate and Ex.PW1/5 which is a statement showing annual sales figures of M/s Jindal Industries.
6. I have heard Shri Vivek Kumar, ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Vide his statement dated 21.07.2012 the ld. counsel for the plaintiff gave up the relief for rendition of accounts.
7. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff that the evidence of the plaintiff has remained unchallenged and unrebutted and thus the plaintiff is entitled to the suit being decreed. The defendant has also filed detailed written arguments and the citations of case law relied upon.
8. I have considered the submissions and the material on record.
9. Evidence of the plaintiff's witness goes unrebutted and unchal lenged as the defendant put a contest to the suit by filing written state ment, and subsequently proceeded exparte, and did not come forward to rebut the evidence of plaintiff in any way or to lead its own evi dence to aspects the factual aspects raised by it.
10. As per the evidence on record, the plaintiff visàvis the defendants has been the pioneer to adopt and use the trade mark trade T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 18 of 25 19 mark trade mark "JINDAL" and its label entitled "JINDAL" along with the device of the map of India in round in a particular manner in respect of the galvanized and other pipes . This complete arrangement is the trade dress. This trade dress registers in the mind of the consumer and he is able to form a picture of broad features of the mark in his mind, though he may not know or may not be able to recall the fine features.
11. The word mark "JINDAL" is not an invented word. It is a surname. A look at the hierarchy of marks from weak to strong in the spectrum of distinctiveness the following lineage appears: GENERIC DESCRIPTIVE SURNAME SUGGESTIVE ARBITRARY INVENTED
12. Thus a surname does not stand very high in the hierarchy. But there are many surnames which have acquired distinctiveness in the course of trade and due to long usage. In Indian households the surnames being used as trade names and trade marks is not an unusual or uncommon feature. The words 'TATA", "BIRLA", "BAJAJ" etc. despite being surnames have become distinctive of the goods they T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 19 of 25 20 represent from a particular proprietor or source. They have thus in the course of use have become source identifier.
13. On this yardstick, and in view of the unrebutted testimony of the PW1 and the long user the mark trade mark "JINDAL" and its label entitled "JINDAL" along with the device of the map of India in round being a surname word and label mark, has acquired distinctiveness on account of the unchallenged testimony of PW1 and on account of its long use has been a source identifier for the plaintiff's goods and its distinctiveness.
14. A trade mark is not respected for its artistic quality, for its design or some novelty in it. It's raison d'etre is its ability to identify the goods to its proprietor as flowing from that particular person and to distinguish it from other persons. Thus it is a pointer or a source identifier for goods. A trade mark is thus trade mark in the course of trade and usage becomes a repository of the goodwill of its proprietor commensurate with the quality of the product, standards, after sales service and host of other factors relevant to goodwill. With the passage of time there is value addition in the trade mark commensurate with the reputation and goodwill of the business.
15. Now the question arises as to what is 'infringement' and what constitutes 'passing off'. A appropriate distinction has been drawn between what are the salient distinguishing features of an action for T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 20 of 25 21 passingoff visàvis an action for infringement in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories AIR 1965 SC 980 as held under:
"...While an action for passing off is a Common Law remedy being in substance an action for deceit, that is, a passing off by a person of his own goods as those of another, that is not the gist of an action for infringement. The action for infringement is a statutory remedy conferred on the registered proprietor of a registered, trade mark for the vindication of "the exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to those goods" (Vide S. 21 of the Act). The use by the defendant of the trade mark of the plaintiff is not essential in an action for passing off, but is the sine qua non in the case of an action for infringement. ................... In an action for infringement, the plaintiff must, no doubt, make out that the use of the defendant's mark is likely to deceive, but where the similarity between the plaintiff's and the defendant's mark is so close either visually, phonetically or otherwise and the court reaches the conclusion that there is in imitation, no further evidence is required to establish that the plaintiff's rights are violated."
16. In Ruston and Hornby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. AIR 1970 SUPREME COURT 1649 it has been held "In an action for infringement where the defendant's trade mark is identical with the plaintiff's mark, the Court will not enquire whether the infringement is such as is T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 21 of 25 22 likely to deceive or cause confusion. But where the alleged infringement consists of using not the exact mark on the Register, but something similar to it, the test of infringement is the same as in an action for passing off. In other words, the test as to likelihood of confusion or deception arising from similarity of marks is the same both in infringement and passingoff actions."
17. Thus a side by side comparison is not the key, but the reality test is the customer or end user. In Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J. P. and Co., Mysore AIR 1972 SC1359 it has been held:
'In order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to another, the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. They should not 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. It would be 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. It is of no use to note on how many points there is similarity and in how many others there is absence of it."
18. Thus the yardstick is based on the reality test--as a consumer in the market. If he is likely to be deceived or taken for a ride, then there is deceptive similarity. Thus, these are the broad features of a particular mark, its general or overall impression that is the relevant T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 22 of 25 23 consideration. These are the broad features and not the meticulous details that remain in the mind of the consumer. There is also the factor of imperfect recollection at play. Thus side by side comparison of two marks is not the true test. The numerical count of similarities or dissimilarities is also immaterial.
19. As per the evidence on record, the trade mark of the plaintiff has amassed considerable reputation and identification in the market. Thus use of the same mark as JINDAL is likely to cause confusion and deception.
20. In passing off action it is not the actual deception that is material. It is the likelihood of deception that is criteria.
21. It is not permissible under the law for any other person to start selling goods or rendering services either using the same name or dishonestly imitating the trade mark of another person as to cause injury to that person and unjustifiably enrich oneself at the cost of that person who had already been using that name and had acquired a certain reputation with the passage of time and on account of the quality of the goods sold or services rendered by him.
22. In view of the unrebutted testimony on record which inspires confidence in the mind of the court as to its evidentiary value the acts and omissions of defendant is amounting to infringement of the trade mark of the plaintiff as wall as passing off. The defendant is also T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 23 of 25 24 liable to the violation of the copyright of the plaintiff.
23. In view of the above the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs of injunction as under:
(a) A decree of permanent injunction is passed restraining the defendant, its agents, representatives, officers, servants and dealers etc. and all other acting for and on their behalf, from using the trade mark "JINDAL" in a manner which may be identical/deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiffs or which may amount to infringement of the plaintiffs trade mark in respect of PVC pipes, tubes and fitting or allied or cognate goods;
(b) A decree of permanent injunction is passed thereby restraining the defendant, its agents, representatives, officers, servants and dealers etc. and all other acting for and on their behalf, from using the trading style with the word "JINDAL" or in any manner which may be identical/deceptively similar to the trade style of the plaintiff.
(c) A decree of permanent injunction is passed thereby restraining the defendant its agents, representatives, officers, servants and dealers etc. and all other acting for and on their behalf from passing off their goods etc, as is likely to lead to passing off of their goods or business as and for those of the T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 24 of 25 25 plaintiffs under the trade mark 'JINDAL' and/or any other mark which may be identical/deceptively similar to the trade mark of the plaintiffs.
(d). A decree for delivery up of the infringing and other incriminating material like publicity/promotional material, goods, stationery items, letter heads/printed material, packing material, dies, blocks etc. by the defendant, its agents representatives, assigns, officers, partners, servants, administrators etc. to the plaintiffs for destruction.
24. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to the costs of the suit.
25. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
26. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court today i.e. 28.07.2012 (MAN MOHAN SHARMA) ADJ (Central)1, Delhi T. M. No. 24/2011 JIndal Inds. Ltd. vs. Jindal Trade Linkers Page 25 of 25