Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This appeal arises out of an order dated 16th July, 2007 passed by learned single Judge of this Court whereby an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-. The facts in the backdrop may be summarized as under:

2. A partnership firm in the name and style of M/s. Keyman Locking Devices was, according to the plaintiff, floated in April, 1985 in terms of a partnership deed dated 1st June, 1985 in which the plaintiff was one of the two partners. Shri Ashwani Berry, the other partner is said to have retired from partnership on 4th September, 1986 leaving the goodwill, assets and liabilities of the concern to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was then joined by his brother Shri Narinder Arora as a partner in the concern that applied for the registration of trade mark "KEYMAN" in class 12 for use in automobiles, which registration was granted in favor of the partnership firm under No. 4459278.

3. In due course the partnership expanded the range of its products and started manufacturing and trading in the entire range of locks, like furniture locks, door locks, metal locks, automobile locks and other hardware items under the Trade Mark "KEYMAN" adopted by the firm w.e.f. 21st November, 1985. The partnership between the plaintiff and Shri Narinder Arora is said to have been dissolved in the year 1999 in terms of a dissolution deed dated 31st March, 1999. The concern was from that date taken over by the plaintiff as its sole proprietor with all its assets including the trademark "KEYMAN" adopted by the plaintiff in respect of the entire range of locks and hardware items manufactured and sold in the name and style of "M/s. Keyman Locking Devices".

4. The plaintiff-appellant's case is that in March, 2007, it came to know that the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, respondents herein, had also started marketing metal locks and hardware items in an exactly and deceptively similar trade mark called "KEY MANN". Alleging that the use and adoption of the trade mark "KEY MANN" by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 amounts to an infringement of the plaintiff's well-known and reputed trade mark "KEYMAN", the plaintiff filed CS(OS) No. 578/2007 on the original side of this Court in which the plaintiff inter alia alleged that the word "KEYMAN" had been invented and coined by plaintiff and the same had been adopted as a trademark for the goods manufactured by the plaintiff, namely, locks and hardware items and that it formed part of the corporate name of the plaintiff's proprietary concern, M/s. Keyman Locking Devices. The plaintiff's further case was that ever since the adoption of the trade mark along with above locking devices, the plaintiff has been extensively and continuously using the same in respect of the entire range of locks including metal locks, auto locks, door locks, furniture locks and other hardware and allied items. It was also alleged that the plaintiff had applied for the registration of trade mark "KEYMAN" with its logo under No. 1387908 in Class-6 with the Registrar of Trademarks on 27.09.05 in respect of the said goods and that the mark was protected under the Trademarks Act, 1999. The plaintiff's further case was that he has given wide publicity to his trademark "KEYMAN" in the print media in the form of advertisements in newspapers, trade magazines, books, stickers, calendars, price list, etc. He claimed to have spent huge amounts on the publicity of trademark "KEYMAN" which according to the plaintiff, enjoyed solid and enduring reputation amongst retailers, wholesalers and distributors of metal locks, and hardware items and also amongst the public at large. The plaintiff in that factual background prayed for a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, representatives, dealers and all other persons on their behalf from manufacturing or selling or otherwise dealing with in locks and hardware items under the offending trademark "KEY MANN" or in any other trademark identical, phonetically and/or deceptively similar to the trademark "KEYMAN" of the plaintiff. An injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trademark "KEYMAN" and passing off their products locks and other hardware items under the trade mark "KEYMAN" was also prayed for apart from a decree for rendition of accounts. The suit was accompanied by an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 for an ad interim ex parte injunction on the above line.

5. A single Bench of this Court hearing the suit on the original side by order dated 30th March, 2007 issued an ex parte injunction restraining the defendants from using the trademark "KEY MANN" or dealing with any trademark identical phonetically and/or deceptively similar to the trademark "KEYMAN" and appointed a Local Commissioner to visit the business premises mentioned in the application and to seize the offending material from the same. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendant moved an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC for vacation of the same and alleging concealment of material facts by the plaintiff. The defendants further alleged that the plaintiff had secured the interim order in question by playing fraud upon the Court. According to the defendants, they were the registered owners of the trademark "KEY MANN" which was registered in their favor on 1st January, 2004 under the Registration No. 1258852. It was also alleged that while Defendant No. 1 had applied for registration of the mark in January, 2004, the plaintiff had done so in September, 2004. It was also pointed out that the defendants had filed objection against the registration of the trade mark "KEYMAN" in favor of the plaintiff and that the plaintiffs had made a false and misleading statement to the effect that Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had recently started marketing metal locks and hardware items under a deceptively similar trademark "KEY MANN". By the order impugned in this appeal, the learned single Judge vacated the ex parte ad interim injunction quoting the following three precise reasons: