Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, its partners, agents, servants, employees, assigns and representatives from in any way using and advertising, directly or indirectly the word "Mac" as a trademark or part of its trading style or any other name similar thereto in-relation to its business/goods, so as to pass-off or enable others to pass-off the defendant's business and goods as and for the business and goods of the plaintiffs;

(b) Permanent Injunction restraining the defendant, its partners, agents, servants, assigns and representatives from infringing the plaintiffs registered trade-mark/name "McDonald's" and "Bid Mac" or from using any other name similar thereto as a trademark, business name or trading style or as a part thereof in-relation to its business/goods.

(c) An account of profits made by the defendant by its aforesaid illegal and wrongful acts by the use of the mark/name "Mac" and a decree in the amount found due to the plaintiffs upon taking of such accounts, be passed.

(d) An order directing the defendant to deliver-up to the plaintiffs on affidavit all goods, sales promotion, literature, stationery and printing blocks in its possession or power bearing the name/mark "Mac" or any other name/mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trademark/name "McDonald's, "Big Mac" for destruction.

(e) Costs of the suit be awarded in-favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant.

(f) Further and other reliefs which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

iii) The defendant entered appearance and resisted the suit by filing written statement. It is stated that defendant is a partnership firm commenced on 1/7/1982. Prior to the formation of partnership firm, John Mathew was already running business in Dubai and Doha. The partnership business was mainly started by him and when he decided to open branch in India, he decided to name the same after his son Mac Mathew and therefore the name Sterling Mac Fast Food. It is stated that the trademark of the Page 1360 plaintiffs and the defendant are totally different. It is categorically stated that the defendant is first in point of time to use the word Mac as a single entity and the plaintiffs used the words Big Max and not Mac alone. It is also stated that the name of plaintiffs is McDonald's and not Mac. In order to establish defendant's name, it applied for registration of its mark under Section 30 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. On the other hand, it is stated that plaintiffs have no registered trademark for the word Mac and for registration of the same, applied only on 27/9/1996. It is also stated that though 1st plaintiff was aware of defendant's name in September 1993 when the notice was served the suit was filed in November 1998 after a gap of nearly 5 years. Denying the claim of the plaintiffs, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.