Bangalore District Court
Meenu Electric Company vs Dyna Mic Electricals And Others on 29 April, 2025
KABC010007652008
IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-10)
Form
No.9 Dated this the 29th day of April, 2025
(Civil)
Title
Sheet for PRESENT: Sri. Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv,
Judgmen
t in XVIII Additional City Civil Judge &
Suits Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
R.P. 91
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.25469/2008
PLAINTIFF: M/s.Meenu Electric Co.
A Partnership Firm, 28 BVK Iyengar
Road, Bengaluru-560 053.
Rep., by its Partner
Mr.Ashok Dunichand Khitri.
[By Sri H.S.H.,Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANTS: 1. M/s.Dynamic Electricals
8/85-B, Sahadev Gali,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi 110 032.
2. M/s. Golden Cab Industries
Plot No.447, Patapar Ganj,
Industrial Area, New Delhi-110 032.
Rptd., by its Proprietrix
Smt.Sunita Devi Kumbhat.
3. M/s.Vijay Cable Co.,
1-2-13/1, Huriopet, 1st Cross,
BVK Iyengar Road, Bengaluru-53
Rptd., by its Proprietor.
[D1 to 3-By Sri.I.B.R., Advocate]
** **
Date of institution of the suit : 13/03/2008
Nature of the suit : Permanent Injunction (IPR)
Date of commencement of : 19/06/2009
recording of the evidence
2 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
Date on which the Judgment : 02/05/2025
is pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
17 01 16
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the
defendants for the relief of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from infringing and passing
off of plaintiff's registered well known trademark 'MEECO'
and also for rendition of accounts etc., along with costs of
the suit.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:-
Plaintiff is the partnership firm carrying on business
in manufacture and sale of electronic goods, electrical
cables, control panels, single phase preventers, auto start
units, copper winding wires, Amps Volt Meters since
01/06/1981. It has got registered its trademark 'MEECO'
under application No.721518 in class-9 and got renewed
it from time to time. It has also obtained Copyright with
respect to its artistic work under application
No.A54232/97 dated 22.10.1997. The plaintiff has got
tremendous success in the business and has got very
3 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
good reputation and goodwill in the trade circles. The
turnover of the plaintiff company from 1981 till 2008
went on increasing and the last turn over i.e., prior to
suit was Rs.1,85,90,000 Crores.
It is further case of the plaintiff that it recently came
to know that defendant No.1 has fraudulently adopted
and applied an identical trademark 'MEECO CAB' under
application No.1093578 in class-9 for PVC wires and
cables stating that she is using the said trademark since
05/03/2000. She has fraudulently obtained said
trademark and thereafter assigned the same in favour of
2nd defendant on 29/05/2007 and now, 2 nd defendant
has been manufacturing and selling cables under
identical and similar trademark 'MEECO CAB'.
Defendants or anybody have no right to infringing its
trademark but defendants have adopted deceptive and
similar trademark merely suffixing 'CAB' to plaintiff's
registered trademark with dishonest intention to encash
upon its reputation and goodwill.
Defendants are attracting the customers of the
plaintiff by using infringed trademark. Hence, plaintiff
has got issued legal notice to the defendant No.1 on
4 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
30/05/2005 demanding her to discontinue the use of
offending mark 'MEECO CAB' for PVC Wires and Pipes.
On receipt of the same, she sent evasive reply dated
14.06.2005.
Thereafter, plaintiff could not collect any evidence to
show that defendant No.1 has continued her business
but assigned said trademark in favour of her sister
concern/2nd defendant under Assignment Deed dated 29 th
May 2007 and instructing her sister Smt.Shanti Devi
Kumbhat to make an application for registration of said
trademark under application No.1567445 in Class 9 and
rectification proceedings are pending before Trademark
Authority. Hence, the cause of action arose to the
plaintiff on 04/01/2008 to file this suit. So, plaintiff
prayed to decree the suit as stated above.
3. On issuance of suit summons, 2nd defendant has
appeared through its counsel and filed written statement
by denying the contents of the plaint in para-wise
including cause of action. It has admitted about issuance
of notice by plaintiff to defendant No.1 but stated that
said notice was replied stating that 1st defendant is used
5 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
to supply of PVC Wires and Cables under trademark
'MEECO, MEECO CAB' since 2000. The registration of
trademark over word-mark 'MEECO CAB' as well as
'MEECO' were granted in its favour in class-9 on
29/03/2005 and 30/05/2006 respectively.
Moreover, despite the opposition of the plaintiff,
both trademarks were granted in favour of 1 st defendant
and subsequently it has assigned the mark 'MEECO CAB'
along with its goodwill in favour of 2 nd defendant under
Assignment Deed dated 29/05/2007 and she continued
the use of said mark along with reputation attached to
this mark.
Apart from that plaintiff was not carrying the
business of PVC Wires and Cables and hence, question of
confusion among the customers does not arise. The mark
of the plaintiff comes with a design and it is not merely
the word 'MEECO'. The categories of goods in the
business of both parties are completely different. Hence,
mark of the defendant is neither identical nor deceptively
similar to the plaintiff's trademark. The design of the
plaintiff and use of the word 'MEECO CAB' are visually
and phonetically completely dissimilar.
6 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
They also filed additional written statement after
amendment of the plaint by the plaintiff by denying the
contents of amended plaint. So the some and substance
of their written statement is denial of case of the plaintiff
and they contended that they are the registered
trademark holders of word-mark 'MEECO' and 'MEECO
CAB'. Hence, permanent injunction cannot be granted
against them. So they prayed to dismiss the suit with
costs.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, my predecessor
in office has framed the following issues :
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that it is the 1 st
user of the mark 'MEECO' in relation to
Electronic Goods, Electrical Cables, Control
panels, single phase preventors, auto start
units etc.,?
(2) Whether plaintiff proves the alleged
infringement of its trademark 'MEECO' by
the defendants by adopting
similar/deceptively similar mark in relation
to similar goods?
(3) Whether plaintiff proves that the defendants
are passing off their goods as that of the
plaintiff by adopting a mark which is
deceptively similar its trademark 'MEECO'?
(4) Whether defendants prove that the plaintiff
has acquiesced in the defendants carrying
7 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
on the business with the mark 'MEECO'
since 2000?
(5) Whether plaintiff is entitle for the reliefs
claimed in the suit?
(6)What order or decree the parties entitle to?
Additional issues dated 06/11/2024
(1) Whether this court has got pecuniary
jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit ?
5. In order to prove the case, the authorized
signatory of the plaintiff has got examined himself as
PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to 12 and also got marked
sample submersible cables as M.O.1 and 2. In order to
rebut the case of the plaintiff, the GPA holder of
defendants No.1 and 2 has got examined himself as DW-
1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to 13. He has examined one
witness as DW2 and got marked Ex.D14 to 18 through
him.
6. Heard both side. Advocate for plaintiff has filed
written synopsis and also relied upon the following
citations.
(1) AIR 1960 SC 142 between Corn Products
Refining Co., Vs. Shangrila Food Products
Ltd.,
8 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
(2) (2002) 3 SCC 65 between Laxmikant V Patel
Vs. Chetanbhai Shah;
(3) (2018) 18 SCC 346 between Wockhardt Ltd.,
Vs. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,
(4) (1994) 2 SCC 448 between Power Control
Appliances Vs. Sumeet Machines(P) Ltd.,
7. The counsel for defendants has also filed written
synopsis and he also relied upon the following citations:-
(1) (2001) 5 SCC 7 between Cadila Health Care
Ltd., Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,
(2) 2021 SCC Online Kar 14700 between ITC Ltd.,
Vs. CG Foods(India)(P) Ltd.,
(3) (2018) 9 SCC 183 between Nandhini Deluxe Vs.
Karnataka Coop. Milk Producers Federation
Ltd.,
(4) (1997) 4 SCC 201 between Vishnudas Trading
Vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co.Ltd.,
(5) AIR 1963 SC 4449 between Amritdhara
Pharmacy Vs. Satya Deo Gupta,
(6) Manu/SC/1020/2023 between Brihan Kran
Sugar Sydicate Private Limited Vs.
Yashwantrao Mohite Krushna Shakari Sakhar
Karkhana.
8. Perused the pleadings of the parties, issues,
evidence oral and documentary, materials on record,
written synopsis and citations relied by both side. My
findings to the above issues are as under:
9 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative;
Issue No.2 :- In the Negative;
Issue No.3 :- In the Negative;
Issue No.4 :- In the Affirmative;
Issue No.5:- In the Negative
Addl issue No.1 :-Already answered in affirmative vide
order dated 03/12/2024.
Issue No.6 :- As per final order
for the following:
9. ISSUES NO.1: Looking to the pleadings and
evidence on record, it is not in dispute that plaintiff is the
trademark holder of device mark 'MEECO' and
defendants are trademark holders of word-mark 'MEECO'
as well as 'MEECO CAB'. The trademark of the plaintiff as
well as defendants are registered before the trademark
authority. Ex.P3 is the Legal User Certificate of plaintiff's
trademark over device mark 'MEECO'. As per this
document, the date of use of said trademark is since
01/01/1981 and plaintiff got it renewed from time to
time. As per this certificate, the goods description is
Control Panel, Electrical Cables, Single Phase Preventers,
Auto Start Units. The Partners of Firm are shown as
Ashok Dunichand Khitri and Lakshman Dunichand
10 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
Khitri. Ex.P1 is the partnership deed containing said
partners and running the partnership firm in the name
and style Meenu Electric Co.,. The present plaintiff before
this Court is M/s. MEENU Electric Co., which is
represented by its partner Ashok Dunichand Khitri.
10. Ex.P5 is the Copyright Certificate issued in the
name of plaintiff with respect to Copyright over Artistic
work of 'MEECO' and it is dated 22/10/97. Ex.P6 & 7 are
the Legal User Certificates of defendants, which discloses
that 1st defendant is using the word-mark 'MEECO CAB'
and 'MEECO' since 05/03/2000. The proprietor is shown
as Sunita Devi Kumbhat as proprietor of Dynamic
Electricals i.e., present 1 st defendant. The goods
description is shown as PVC Wires & Cables included in
class-9. Ex.P10-Invoices are of the year 1996 to 2004
issued by plaintiff's firm.
11. So, considering these documents it is crystal
clear that plaintiff is the prior user of device mark
'MEECO'. Defendants are using word-mark 'MEECO' and
'MEECO CAB' since 05/03/2000. The plaintiff though
mentioned that it is using trade-name 'MEECO' since
11 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
01/01/1981 but documents produced by it are
subsequent to 1996. So, plaintiff is using the trademark
since 1996 and defendants are using it since 2000. So,
plaintiff is the prior user of device mark 'MEECO'. Hence,
I answer issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
12. ISSUE NO.2:- It is the specific case of the
plaintiff that defendants are infringing it's trademark
'MEECO' but as above stated the plaintiff as well as
defendants are registered trademark holders of 'MEECO'.
The plaintiff has obtained device mark and defendants
have obtained word-mark over said mark. Since the
trademarks of the defendants are registered with respect
to word-mark 'MEECO' as well as 'MEECO CAB', they can
use said trademarks without any hurdles. The provision
under Section 30(e) of Trademarks Act is applicable,
which reads as under:-
"30. Limits on effect of registered trade
mark.--
(1) Nothing in section 29 shall be construed
as preventing the use of a registered trade
mark by any person for the purposes of
identifying goods or services as those of the
proprietor provided the use.
(2) A registered trade mark is not infringed
where--
(a) xxxxxxxxxxx
12 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
(b) xxxxxxxxxxx
(c) xxxxxxxxxxx
(d) xxxxxxxxxx
(e) the use of a registered trade mark, being
one of two or more trade marks registered
under this Act which are identical or nearly
resemble each other, in exercise of the right to
the use of that trade mark given by
registration under this Act".
So, use of the trademark by defendants is protected
under Section 30(2)(e) of Trademarks Act. Both side have
admitted that the Rectification proceedings with respect
to trademark of the plaintiff as well as defendants are
pending before Hon'ble Delhi and Madras High Court.
13. As per Section 29 of Trademarks Act, 'it can be
said that a registered trademark can be infringed a
person, who is not being a registered trademark holder'.
But in this case, the trademark of the plaintiff as well as
defendants are registered with respect to similar word
'MEECO'. So, plaintiff cannot maintain this suit under
Section 29 of Trademarks Act and accordingly, the
plaintiff cannot allege an infringement of its trademark by
defendants. Moreover, this issue is pending before the
trademark authority and since both trademarks are
registered, I hold that this Court cannot give any findings
13 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
on this issue. The Civil Court cannot try this issue
because the proceedings are pending before Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi and Madras. The final order, which will be
passed by Hon'ble Delhi and Madras High Court will be
binding on both the parties. The goods of the plaintiff as
well as defendants are not similar. Plaintiff is
manufacturer of controle panels, electrical cables, single
phase preventers, Auto start units whereas defendants
are manufactures of PVC wires and cables. So, they are
not using the trademark 'MEECO' in relation to similar
goods. Hence, I hold that plaintiff has not proved this
issue. Hence, I answer this issue in Negative.
14. ISSUE NO.3 TO 5:- It is case of the plaintiff
that they are prior user of trademark 'MEECO' and
defendants cannot passing off the said trademark by
using similar and identical mark'. As per Ex.P.3, plaintiff
is using the trademark over device-mark 'MEECO' with
respect to Control Panel, Electrical Cables, Single Phase
Preventers, Auto Start Units. As per Ex.P.6 & 7,
defendants are using the word-mark 'MEECO' as well as
14 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
'MEECO CAB' with respect to PVC Wires & Cables
included class-9.
15. As per Section 17 of Trademarks Act, the
plaintiff can use device mark with respect to whole mark
i.e., word 'MEECO' as well as device shown by the
plaintiff but it cannot claim that defendants are
infringing the device mark just by using the word
'MEECO'. Defendants are not using any device mark but
they have got registered word-mark 'MEECO'. And since
matter is pending before competent authority, I hold that
plaintiff cannot claim that they have extracted the word
'MEECO' from trademark of the plaintiff and thereby
passing off the goods of the plaintiff. The plaintiff can
claim device-mark 'MEECO' but it cannot claim
injunction with respect to word-mark 'MEECO'.
Defendants have already got word-mark 'MEECO', hence
they cannot be restrained from using the said mark. If
both of them are using device-mark, which are similar
and identical, then the plaintiff should sought the
injunction against defendants.
15 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
16. As per Invoices produced by the plaintiff and as
per their trademark registration certificate, they are using
the device-mark 'MEECO' with respect to Control Panel,
Auto Start Unit, Submersible cables etc.,. But defendants
are using trademark 'MEECO' with respect to PVC wires.
The plaintiff as well as defendants are dealing in
wholesale business and their clients are dealers and
retailers and not customers and not direct users. So,
retailers will definitely choose their products and they
cannot be put into confusion. The customers are not
direct clients of the plaintiff as well as defendants. So,
case of the plaintiff that customers will be put into
confusion cannot be accepted. The plaintiff as well as
defendants are using their respective trademark since
more-than 25 years.
17. The plaintiff has not produced any evidence to
show because of offending mark used by defendants, the
reputation and its goodwill is affected and they are
suffering loss in the business. As per Ex.P4/sales
turnover Certificate, after 2000 onwards its sales
turnover is increased and not at all decreased.
16 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
Defendants are using their mark since 2000 and if
customers were not purchasing the goods of the plaintiff
under confusion, the sales turn over of the plaintiff
should have been reduced. But Certificate produced by
themselves shows that there is no reduction in the profit
or turn over of the plaintiff firm. Hence, plaintiff has not
passed the 3rd test i.e., likelyood of injury or damage
caused to the plaintiff. Hence, case of the plaintiff that
because of use of similar and identical mark by
defendants, its business is affected or its reputation in
the business is affected cannot be accepted.
18. M.O.1 is the plaintiff's product, which contains
device-mark 'MEECO' and M.O.2 is defendants product,
which contains 'MEECO CARGO'. The said products are
not identical and similar one. The plaintiff is using its
product for purpose of Control Panel, Auto Start Unit,
Submersible cables etc.,. Defendants are using their
mark for PVC Wires. So, categories of goods is totally
different and there is no pleading in the plaint about
visual similarity between both products or trademark.
17 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
19. In order to claim the relief of passing off of
trademark, the plaintiff has to prove three ingredients
i.e.,goodwill, misrepresentation and damages. On this
point I rely upon the judgment reported in SCC-2016-2-
683, S.Syed Mohideen Vs. P.Sulochana Bai,. Wherein
it is held as under:-
"The three ingredients of passing off are goodwill,
misrepresentation and damage. These ingredients are
considered to be classical trinity under the law of
passing off as per the speech of Lord Oliver laid down
in the case of Reckitt & Colman Products Ltd. v Borden
Inc3 which is more popularly known as "Jif Lemon"
case wherein the Lord Oliver reduced 1 AIR (1995)
Delhi 300 2 (1996) 5 SCC 714 3 (1990) 1 All E.R. 873
(arising out of SLP (C) No. 12671 of 2014) the five
guidelines laid out by Lord Diplock in Erven Warnink v.
Townend & Sons Ltd.4 (the "Advocate Case") to three
elements: (1) Goodwill owned by a trader, (2)
Misrepresentation and (3) Damage to goodwill. Thus,
the passing off action is essentially an action in deceit
where the common law rule is that no person is entitled
to carry on his or her business on pretext that the said
business is of that of another. This Court has given its
imprimatur to the above principle in the case of
Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhat Shah & Anr".
20. In this case plaintiff has produced evidence that
it is registered trademark holder of device mark 'MEECO'
and it has got very good reputation in the business with
respect to Submersible cables, control pannel, auto start
18 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
unit etc., and not with respect to PVC wires. So, it has
not proved the ingredient of misrepresentation and
damages. It has not proved that its sales turn over is
reduced due to sale of products of defendants.
21. I have perused the each and every citations
relied by the plaintiff as well as defendants but with due
respect, I hold that these citations are not at all
applicable to the facts of this case. Since the matter is
pending before Honble High Court of Madrass and Delhi,
I hold that the relief of passing off i.e., remedies under
Common Law also cannot be granted in favour of
plaintiff.
22. The plaintiff has issued the legal notice on 30 th
May 2005, he filed this suit on 13/03/2008 and allowed
the defendants to use the trademark 'MEECO' and
'MEECO CAB'. So, this conduct of the plaintiff shows
that it has acquiesced its right. 'The concept live and let
live' is very well applicable to the facts of this case.
Plaintiff as well as defendants are running their business
since several years and both of them are successfully
running their business profitable. So, after 25 years of
19 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
use of trademark by defendants, they cannot be
restrained from using said mark wherein they have also
developed goodwill and reputation. So, considering the
evidence on record, I hold that plaintiff is not at all entitle
for the relief of injunction with respect to passing off
including the relief of rendition of accounts as claimed in
this suit. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 to 5 in the
Negative.
23. ISSUE NO.6 :-In view of my findings given to
issues as stated above, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
*** [Dictated to the Stenographer, after transcription, the Script is corrected directly in computer, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 29th day of April, 2025.] [Chinnannavar Rajesh Sadashiv ] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:-
PW.1 :: Ashok Dunichand Khitri
2. List of documents marked on behalf of plaintiff :-
Ex.P1 :: Certified copy of Partnership Deed ;
20 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment Ex. P.2 :: Certified copy of Registration Form;
Ex. P.3 :: Certified copy of Trademark Certificate ; Ex.P.4 :: Certified copy of Statement of Sales Account;
Ex.P.5 :: Certified copy of Copyright Certificate ; Ex.P.6 & 7 :: Legal User Certificates of defendants ; Ex.P.8 & 9 :: News paper cutting; Ex.P.10 :: Invoices are of the year 1996 to 2004;
Ex.P.11 :: Reply Letter;
Ex.P.11(a) & :: Copy of Form No.C and Form No.1;
(b) Ex.P.12 :: Copy of legal Notice ; Ex.P.12(a) & :: Copy of Form No.C and Form No.1.
(b)
3. List of M.O.s marked on behalf of plaintiff :
M.O.1 & :: Sample of Submersible cables of plaintiff ;
4. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:-
DW.1 :: Darshka M Parekh
DW.2 :: Nikhil Kumar Gajani
5. List of documents marked on behalf of defendants:
Ex.D1 :: Legal notice dt.30/05/2005;
Ex.D2 :: Photographs;
Ex.D3 & 4 :: SPA dt.15/01/2014 (2 in Nos);
Ex.D5 :: Assignment Deed dt.11/12/2007 ;
Ex.D6 & 7 :: Certificate of Trademarks (2 in Nos.) ;
Ex.D8 :: Objection filed by plaintiff before
trademark Registry;
Ex.D9 :: Certificate issued by Bureau of Indian
Standard to the defendants;
Ex.D10 :: Office copy of legal notice dt.30/05/2005;
21 / 21 O.S.No.25469/2008_Judgment
Ex.D11 & :: Copy of reply dt.14/06/2005 and
12 08/07/2005 respectively ;
Ex.D13 :: True copy of search report ;
Ex.D14 & :: SPA executed in favour DW1
15 dt.13/08/2024 (2 in Nos);
Ex.D16 :: Online Printout of Rectification
Proceedings;
Ex.D17 :: Online printout of case status ;
Ex.D18 :: Certificate U/s.65B of Evidence Act;
6. List of M.O.s marked on behalf of defendants :
M.O.2 :: Sample of Submersible cables of defendants ;
XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.