Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. It is then contended that in a passing off action no case of actual deception nor any actual damage need be proved. Reliance has been place on the decisions of East End Hosiery Pvt. Ltd. v. A. Textiles Company AIR 1971 Cal 37 and Ruston and Hornby Ltd. v. Zamindars Engineering Co. in this context.

9. It is finally submitted where there is complete identity of the marks and trading style of the plaintiff and the defendant the Court must grant an injunction.

10. The respondents have submitted that the petitioner not being the registered proprietor of the trade mark Calvin Klein in Class 25 was not entitled to maintain an action with regard to infringement. Secondly it is submitted that the petitioner could not maintain any action even on the basis of passing off as the petitioner has no local goodwill. Accordingly to the respondents local goodwill must be based on business within the country and secondly it must be shown that the petitioner has suffered consequential damage. The respondents have relied upon passages in Kerly's Law of Trade Marks and Trade name (11th Edn) as well as passages in Clerk and Lindsell on Torts (15th Edn) as well as on the following decisions : Athletes Food Marketing Associates Inc. v. Kobra Sports Ltd. and Anr. : 1980 RPC 343; Renter Coy Ltd. v. Mulhena Vol. 70 RPC 235; Reynods Tobacco Company v. ITC : 1987 (1) Arbitration Law Reporter 156; Alain Barnarden ET Compagnie v. Pavelien Properties Ltd., : 1967 RFC 581 and Aktiebolaget Jonkoping Vulcan v. V.S.V. Palanichamy Nadar and Ors : .