Punjab-Haryana High Court
Fuji (International) Ltd vs Fuji Photo Films Coy. Ltd on 31 October, 2012
Author: K. Kannan
Bench: K. Kannan
RFA No.1549 of 1992 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RFA No.1549 of 1992
Date of Decision.31.10.2012
Fuji (International) Ltd., Fuji House, Blue Heaven Building, Old Railway
Road, Gurgaon through its Director Jai Dev Aggarwal
.....Appellant
Versus
Fuji Photo Films Coy. Ltd., 210 Nakanuma, Minamiashigaraashi
Kanagawaken, Japan .....Respondent
Present: Mr. Jaiveer Chandel, Advocate for
Mr. Arun Jain, Senior Advocate
for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
-.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)
1. The appeal would require to be dismissed on simple issue of attempt by the appellant styling itself as Fuji International Ltd., which was injuncted as deceptive and violation of trademark infringement of the respondent, the Fuji Photo Films Company, Japan. It was admittedly a foreign company having its business in India, which was spoken to by a power of attorney. The fact of registration of trademark was itself not disputed. The contention of the defendant, however, was that Fuji did not mean anything that it was merely a name of mountain and therefore, any person could have the same name. It was also stated by the defendant that they had themselves not commenced any business and therefore, there was justification for seeking any restraint. The further contention of the defendant was that the plaintiff had not established that they had also RFA No.1549 of 1992 -2- registered the trademark in India.
2. I find none of the objection taken by the defendant merit any acceptance and the decree granted restraining the defendant from carrying on a business in the name of Fuji International Limited was perfectly justified. Having regard to the remarkably deceptive name Fuji International Limited when the trademark Fuji is an acclaimed trend leader in film products and further with the evidence of the plaintiff asserting the status of the plaintiff-company and the association of the public in the name of the product was itself not specifically refuted by any evidence offered by the defendant, the suit was decreed rightfully and there is no scope for interference in appeal.
3. The appeal is dismissed.
(K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 31, 2012 Pankaj*