Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. It is stated that the plaintiff company is owner of the registered trademark O-ZONE having registration number 858061 w.e.f. 26.05.1999 in Class 11. The said Trademark was advertised in Trademark journal no. 1343. The registration is valid, subsisting and in full force. The said registered trademark has been assigned by the plaintiff's sister concern M/s. Jaycee overseas Inc. in favour of the plaintiff.

9. It is stated that the plaintiff company is owner of the registered trademark OZONE having registration number 1184700 dated 21.03.2003 in respect of appliances for heating, cooling, cooking, lighting, air circulating, air ventilating included in Class 11. The said Trademark was advertised in Trademark journal no. 1328 (S-1). The registration is valid, subsisting and in full force.

10. It is stated that the plaintiff company is owner of the registered trademark OZONE having registration number 1334470 dated 25.01.2005 in respect of glass and glassware solid, tempered, toughened included in Class 21. The said Trademark was advertised in Trademark journal no. 1329 (S-

1). The registration is valid, subsisting and in full force.

11. It is stated that the plaintiff company is owner of the registered trademark OZONE TUFF having registration number 1334469 dated 25.01.2005 in Class 21. The said Trademark was advertised in Trademark journal no. 1347. The registration is valid, subsisting and in full force.

22. It is stated that the plaintiff has no source to know the quantum of profits earned by the defendant by selling the goods under the impugned mark CELLOZONE which can only be ascertained after rendition of accounts of the defendant at the final stages.

23. The defendant company filed detailed written statement and reply to the interim application. The Preliminary Objections taken that the defendant company is having its office at Umakant Pandit Udognagar, Behind Balkrishna Engineering, Gulabwadi, Rajkot 4 (Gujarat) and manufacturing and marketing Door Closer under the trademark CELLOZONE registered under Class 06 having registration no. 1416916 since 01.07.2005. It is stated that trademark CELLOZONE being highly distinctive mark of the defendant has acquired unique reputation in the minds of purchasing public and the members of the trade on account of quality products, extensive use and vast publicity.

The very adoption is tainted with dishonesty, no amount of use can cleanse the dishonesty. Therefore, there is no doubt that defendant knowingly adopted and used a deceptively similar mark CELLOZONE on an identical trade dress and packaging with distinctive feature of the plaintiff trademark in relation to identical products 'Door Closers'.

40. I do not find any substance in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the defendant that the registration of plaintiff's trademark is 'O-ZONE' for item for the Class 6 since year 1999 and also for Class 11 products. Similarly, the trademark 'OZONE' having "O" in a distinctive and unique matter for Class 21 products. It is pertinent to mention here that it is admitted case of the defendant that he has been manufacturing the Door Closers and adopted later impugned trademark/label CELLOZONE having all the unique features of trademark of plaintiff. It is further pertinent to mention here that as per document filed on record, the defendant himself admitted that there are two other trademarks apart from CELLOZONE adopted by the defendant company for hydraulic Door Closures i.e. 'Honest' and 'Keyo Poland'. There is no plausible reason explained when there are already two trademarks are being used by the defendant then why deceptively similar trademark of the plaintiff company adopted by the defendant company. The copy of trade marks of defendant company is placed on the next page: