Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(4) The defendants have Filed the written statement in the suit. as well as, reply to the application. In their reply, defendants have stated that their product "CITRA" is a clear lemon-lime beverage, bottled in green colour bottles and sold under the trade name "CITRA" - "SUPER COOLER". The product was conceived by the defendant no.2 in the year 1984. Defendant no.2 got an application made to the Registrar of Trade Marks, Bombay, for its registration on March 22, 1984, through Shri Dinesh Bhatt, a Senior Executive working with the defendant No.1 M/s Parle Exports Limited, p73 Bombay. The registration number allotted to the said application is 419898. The defendants also caused a search to be made in the office of the Registrar of Trade Marks in the second week of October, 1989, before launching the above said beverage, if any such trade name has been registered and having been informed that there is no such trade name registered, either in the name of "CITRA" or "CITRO" or any other similar name, the defendant no.2 wrote a letter dated December 14, 1989 to their Advertisers M/s Ambience Advertising Private Limited, Bombay, requesting them to prepare a design of the logo for "CITRA" and also prepare art work for design for outdoor advertisements. The defendant no.2 reapplied for the registration of the trade mark "CITRA" on July 25, 1990, which application was duly registered as No. 598686, which application is still pending. The beverage "CITRA" was launched in September, 1990 at Chandigarh, Kanpur and subsequently in all parts in India. The plaintiffs product is only confined to a very small territory i.e. Jodhpur in Rajasthan . The visual comparison of the two bottles would show (i) that the plaintiffs product is "CITRO INTERNATIONAL" with a logo printed on the bottle as well as the crown cap whereas the defendants' product is sold under the trade name "CITRA" - "SUPER COOLER" printed on both sides of the bottles; (ii) "CITRO International" is bottled in a white bottle whereas p73 "CITRA" is bottled in a green bottle; (iii) the logo of the plaintiff's product is entirely different from that of "CITRA"; (iv) Plaintiff's bottle is cloudy whereas Citra is clear colourless beverage; (v) the product of the plaintiff 'CITRO' even otherwise has not become so exclusive that the defendants' product could be passed off as 'CITRO' etc. (5) Learned counsel for the plaintiff has strongly contended that the plaintiff has already established prior user and there is likelihood of deception and confusion. He, however, has admitted that the product is in usage in Rajasthan and he will be satisfied if the temporary injunction is issued against the defendants only in that territory. Reference is made to the judgments in Ruston and Homby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. ; Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar and Co. and others ; Usha Intercontinental & others v. Usha Television Ltd. 1986 Arbitration Law Reporter 36 and National Garments, Kaloor, Cochin v.National Apparels, Emakulam, Cochin .