Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff's goods under the trade mark "DIMMERSTAT" has been extensively advertised since 1945 and the same has acquired formidable goodwill and reputation which according to the plaintiff is evident from the sale figures set out in paragraph 3 of the plaint.

4. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendants adopted the trade mark "DIMMER DOT" in relation to variable voltage auto transformers of their manufacture and sale which is likely to cause confusion or deception amongst the members of the public which is deceptively similar with the trade mark "DIMMERSTAT" of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling, advertising, directly or indirectly and/or dealing in voltage auto transformers under the impugned trade mark "DIMMER DOT" or any other trade mark as may be identical to or deceptively similar with the trade mark "DIMMERSTAT" amounting to infringement of the trade mark of the plaintiff as also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from passingoff their goods as that of the plaintiff and also for rendition of account of profits etc.

9. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon the decision in Abercrombie & Fitch Company Vs. Hunting World, Incorporated; reported in 189 USPQ 759, J.R. Kapoor Vs. M/s. Micronix India; reported in 1994(3) SCALE 732. He further submitted that the trade marks of the plaintiff and the defendants being dissimilar, the present cannot be a case of infringement and at best it could be a case of passingoff and "DIMMERSTAT" and "DIMMER DOT" being not deceptively similar could not create any confusion and deception. He further submitted that the products in question are extremely sophisticated electrical instruments which are applied in industrial projects and thus the buyers of these products are extremely discerning and would not be confused between the plaintiff's and defendant's brand names.

13. Section 28(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act provides that the registration of a trade mark in PartA or PartB of the register shall, if valid, give to the registered proprietor of the trade mark the exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to the goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered. Section 29(1) provides that a registered trade mark is infringed by a person who, not being the registered proprietor of the trade mark or a registered user thereof uses in the course of a trade mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the trade mark in relation to any goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered.. Thus, the right of exclusive use of the registered trade mark which is conferred under Section 28(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act shall stand infringed by use of an identical or deceptively similar trade mark also.

19. It is undoubtedly true that the first syllable of a work mark is generally the most important and thus, when the defendants are using a similar prefix with that of the plaintiff with a little variation in the suffix part of it, in my considered opinion, the trade marks are deceptively similar and cause of action for prima facie infringement is complete. The submission of the learned counsel for the defendants that the word "DIMMER" is a generic and descriptive word also cannot be accepted for the trade mark is "DIMMERSTAT" and not "DIMMER" and the Court in a case of infringement of trade mark has to look into the whole of the trade mark as registered including the word "DIMMER". Since the plaintiff has been using the said trade mark for a long period of time, user of deceptively similar trade mark by the defendants would necessarily cause irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff. In my considered opinion, balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.