Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

i) that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction;

ii) that the mark `Exoncorp' has been coined from a scientific term;

iii) that the Plaintiff's wordmark "Exxon" is not registered in Class 42 which relates to IT services and hence on the above ground, it is submitted that the Plaintiff is not entitled to injunction.

7. Ms. Anuradha Salhotra, Ld. counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant's conduct is not bona fide. She relies on the initial LinkedIn page of the Defendant where it is claimed that the Defendant had more than 501-1000 employees. However, it is now admitted that the Defendant's operations are not so big and it has very few employees. The print out of the latest LinkedIn page has also been filed to show that the same has been completely changed. In the latest website as available currently, the Defendant claims that it only has 2-10 employees. This is in stark contrast from the earlier claim of 501-1000 employees. This, according to the Plaintiff, showed that the Defendant was making various statements all along and misleading the public and such other persons who were dealing with it. Further, it is also submitted that the Defendant's website had a payment gateway as is evident from the internet print out of the website filed on record. However, after the filing of the suit, the Defendant has deliberately disabled the same in a mala fide manner only to argue lack of territorial jurisdiction. Ms. Salhotra further submitted that the Plaintiff's mark 'EXXON' has been declared a well-known mark in various proceedings initiated by it and accordingly it is entitled to the highest level of protection.

9. This Court has considered the rival submissions. First and foremost fact is that the Defendant does not dispute most of the pleadings in the plaint. The relevant paragraphs of the written statement are set out below:

"3-6. That the contents of the para are matter of record, thus needs no reply.

...

8. That the contents are correct and admitted. It is pertinent to mention that though the plaintiff mark is registered as trademark in approx. 160 jurisdiction of the world, but the same wordmark as "Exxon" is still not registered as trademark by the Plaintiff's company and is under objection vide application no. 3321481 in Class

42. That plaintiff's have provided the list registration of mark "EXXON", wherein non of the registration is done under class 42 in which defendant mark lies. Moreover, the defendants claims the word "EXONCORP" as a whole and in entirety. It is additionally submitted that a company under the name "Exxon Electricals private limited" having Registered address at Delhi and incorporated in the 1986 is running its business since 33 years with a wordmark "exxon" and not an single objection have been taken with respect to the same. ...

17. That contents of thi para are admitted to the extent which are matter of record. That till date, the same wordmark "Exxon" is still not registered as trademark by the Plaintiff's company and is under objection vide application no. 3321481 in Class 42. Moreover, wordmark which is registered is EXXONMOBILE vide two separate application no's 2915473 & 2915484 in class 42.

18. -19. That the contents are matter of record. ...