Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Ld. counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs, after some preliminary arguments, states that the second claim with respect to seeking relief against the respondent/defendant on account of appellant no. 1/plaintiff no. 1 being the owner of the copyright work in its label having the trademark/wordmark „555‟ as part of a label containing a particular colour scheme and a pony, is not pressed. Therefore, essentially what the Ld. counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs states is that the appellants/plaintiffs do not question the decision of the trial court with respect to issue nos. 2 to 7 in favour of the respondent/defendant to the extent that it is held that there is no deceptive similarity in the two labels of appellant no.1/plaintiff no.1 and respondent/defendant, however, subject to and without prejudice to the arguments and rights of the appellants/plaintiffs for claiming entitlement to the trademark/wordmark „555‟. Therefore, this Court only has to examine as to whether the appellants/plaintiffs are owners of the trademark/wordmark „555‟ and whether the respondent/ defendant can use the trademark/wordmark which is used by the appellants/plaintiffs with respect to haberdashery goods. I may also further clarify that the entitlement to the trademark/wordmark „555‟ is now only of appellant no. 2/plaintiff no. 2 because the appellant no. 1/plaintiff no. 1 no longer claims to be the licensee of the trademark/wordmark „555‟.

4. The respondent/defendant contested the suit and prayed for its dismissal. The respondent/defendant pleaded that the suit was liable to be dismissed on account of undue delay, latches and acquiescence. The respondent/defendant further pleaded that it was selling its goods, being spring snap fasteners, since the year 1989 alongwith its label and this label was pleaded not to be deceptively similar to the label of the appellant no.1/plaintiff no.1. The colour scheme of the label was pleaded to be common to the trade and that the label of the respondent/defendant was pleaded to be different for the reason that the trademark/wordmark of the respondent/defendant was 'V.R.' which was not the trademark/wordmark of the appellants/plaintiffs. Another difference for there not existing passing off was that the respondent/defendant on its label had a swan in white colour and which was not found on the label of the appellant no.1/plaintiff no.1. So far as the user of the trademark/wordmark „555‟ by the respondent/defendant is concerned, it was pleaded by the respondent/defendant that the appellants/plaintiffs have lost the right to this trademark/wordmark „555‟ on account of delay, latches and acquiescence.

(xvii) Relief."

6. I have already noted that issue nos. 2 to 7 have been decided in favour of the respondent/defendant and the Ld. counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs does not question the decision on issue nos. 2 to 7 except the fact that respondent/defendant cannot use the trademark/wordmark of the appellant no. 2/plaintiff no. 2 being „555‟ and that this trademark/wordmark „555‟ cannot be used as part and parcel of the label of the respondent/defendant. It is noted that so far as the aspects of delay, latches and acquiescence are concerned, the same were the subject matter of issue no. 1, and so far as the ownership of the appellant no. 1/plaintiff no. 1 of the trademark „555‟ is concerned, the same was the subject matter of issue no. 10. A reference to paras 26 and 27 of the impugned judgment shows that on behalf of respondent/defendant, issue nos. 1 and 10 were conceded by the respondent/defendant in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. These paras 26 and 27 read as under:-

Ld counsel for defendant submitted that he is not pressing for the said issues and has no objection if the same be decided in favour of plaintiffs. Keeping in view of the submission of ld counsel for defendant, all these issues are decided in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants."

7. Therefore, since the appellants/plaintiffs now only claim rights in the trademark/wordmark „555‟ and issue nos. 1 and 10 have been decided/conceded in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs by the respondent/defendant, hence, there is no doubt that the appellant no. 2/plaintiff no. 2 would be the owner of the trademark/wordmark „555‟ with respect to haberdashery goods including snap fasteners, needles of all kinds, hooks and eyelets etc. Once the appellant no. 2/plaintiff no. 2 is the owner of the trademark „555‟, then, the respondent/defendant cannot use the trademark/wordmark „555‟ in any manner with respect to selling of its goods by the respondent/defendant including by applying the trademark/wordmark „555‟ by the respondent/defendant on its labels or packaging etc. Accordingly, the respondent/defendant is restrained from in any manner using the trademark/wordmark „555‟ on its products or labels or packaging etc. which in any manner pertain to selling by the respondent/defendant of its own goods being spring snap fasteners.