Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

and Birla formative marks. The Plaintiffs claim that by virtue of internal business arrangement, only the Birla family group of companies owned or managed by Birla family are entitled to adoption and/or use of the well known trade mark "BIRLA" either standalone or in conjunction with other mark. It is stated that one such mark is Aditya Birla Group word mark and logo which was adopted in the year 1996 in multiple classes and has been used in conjunction with other "BIRLA" marks. The Aditya Birla Management Corporation Pvt Ltd maintains the website with the domain name www.birlawhite.com since 1st November,1999.

41. The Plaintiffs, though have dedicated substantial portion of the plaint to plead about the Birla Group's reputation, goodwill and association of the Plaintiffs with the Birla group, however, have failed to substantiate the pleading by way of documentary material. There is not a single document on record to prima facie demonstrate : (a) the prior use and registration of the "BIRLA" marks by the BIRLA group of companies in respect of its products; (b) the registrations of "BIRLA"

mark and its formative marks secured by Birla group of companies in respect of its diverse products which marks have become distinctive of the BIRLA group (c) the Plaintiffs being part of the Birla group and thus acquires right to use the "BIRLA" trade mark and formative trade marks by internal arrangement or the right being devolved upon the Plaintiffs through the Birla group of companies.

51. What we have is the claim of the Plaintiff No.1 which is a limited company who has acquired registration of the trade mark "BIRLA COASTAL" and formative marks using word Birla as part of its mark, with the earliest registration being of the year 2001 and the user prima facie demonstrated from 2007-2008 as against the Defendant No.1 who has obtained registration of the mark "BIRLA" and formative marks using the word Birla and has prima facie demonstrated user since the year 2008. With this background of the respective dates of registration and user of the rival marks, the issues of infringement and passing off are required to be considered. Without evidence being led, it is not possible to accept that user of the mark by Defendant No.1 is from the year 2004 or that the user by the Plaintiffs pre-decessor was since the year 1988.