Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. It was next argued by Mr. Kalra that in the absence of a registered trade mark, the petitioner could not claim any relief against infringement under Section 27 of the Act. That may indeed be so. But the question is whether the petitioner cannot even seek relief against passing off. The petitioner company, as noticed earlier, is an internationally reputed publishing house which has earned goodwill qua its publication including those relating to trade mark "Auto Motor and Sport". The transborder reputation of international companies is not something which is unknown or unusual in the modern context where barriers of time distance and communication have broken on account of technological advancement made in various fields. That apart, the trans-border reputation of a company's product or its goodwill has to be seen keeping in view the section of the society to which the company's product caters. "Auto Motor and Sport" is not a magazine that would cater to the needs the rural populace. The magazine is somewhat elitist in its reach and content. For those who read this kind of publication, the knowledge that the petitioner is the owner of the trademark and logo in German and other languages cannot be said to be obscure.

18. More importantly, the question is whether a party who enteres into an agreement under which it acquires the license to use the trademark and logo of an other, can turn round post termination of the agreement and contend that the licensor had no trans border name, goodwill or reputation. The answer in my opinion must be in the negative. It is not a case where the use of a trademark and log is being objected to simply on the ground that the defendant is passing of his goods as that of the plaintiff. On such cases, the plaintiff may be required to prove affirmatively that it has a transborder reputation or goodwill before an injunction could be issued as indeed is the view taken in some of the decided cases relied upon by the respondent. It is on the contrary a case in which the respondent has a written agreement with the petitioner under the terms whereof, the former has unconditionally acknowledged the ownership of the petitioner over the trade mark and the logo in question and further agreed that any registration of the said trade mark or registration in the Indian context would ensure for the benefit of the respondent. That being so, the respondent is estopped both in law and equity from asserting that the petitioner has no right over the trademark or that its transborder reputation does not extend to this country. The respondent cannot be allowed to act in a manner that would be down right, dishonest or unethical. Indeed, if the petitioner had no transborder reputation or it was not the owner of the trademark and logo in question, there was no need for the respondent to have entered into a Syndication and Licensing Agreement with it. Having done so, the respondent cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate.