Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. According to the plaintiffs, the word "Kirloskar" expressed on any particular product connotes and denotes distinct reputation and eminence and goodwill associated with the quality of products manufactured, marketed and serviced and otherwise dealth -with by the plaintiffs. The trade mark "Kirloskar" was registered under the, Trade Marks and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 (for short the 'Act of 1958') and the said trade mark has been renewed from time to time and continued to be the exclusive property of plaintiff-1. The plaintiffs have about 21 Companies in their group which used the word "Kirloskar" and they are carrying on their respective business in India and abroad. Defendant-3 in the past was associated with certain Kirloskar group of Companies in several capacities. He started as an employee in one or more of the plainiffs group. Later on he also became a Director of the number of plaintiffs group of Companies, that is, the Mysore Kirloskar Ltd., Kirloskar Systems Ltd., Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. As such he was aware of the ownership as well as the rights of the registered user of the plaintiffs of the above trade marks, trade name as well as the copyrights owned and possessed by plaintiff-1 and its group. It is therefore clear that defendant-1 to 5 wrongfully and fraudulently want to utilise the name and reputation attached to the word "Kirloskar" without having any rights thereto and in spite of the above knowledge. One of the objects of Kirloskar Electric "Company Ltd. i.e., plaintiff-2 as set out in the memorandum of association is to establish a business relating to computers of all kinds and descriptions, computer components, computer pariphe-rals, micro processors, PCBs relays of types Winchester drivers, tape drives, key boards and switches, modems and multi ploxes etc. One of the objects of the 1st defendant Company is also relating to starting of business in computers study, filming, video equipment, films, videos and all such other business connected with computer programmes for exhibition of films in general. According to the plaintiffs, the objects referred to above show that even a bare perusal of the objects clause set out unmistakably pinpoint the resemblance, similarity, identity of the objects which cannot be attributed to mere co-existence. The said objects give at least a broad idea as to the fields in which defendant-1 Company intends to venture for its business.

13. The learned counsel further submitted that in a passing off action it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to prove the fraudulent intention on the part of the defendants in order to seek relief of temporary injunction. Therefore, according to him, the trial Court was not right in holding that the plaintiffs have not made out a prima facie case.

14. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs further contended that the trial Court having come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have established their reputation or goodwill in their business and trade, ought not have held that the plaintiffs have not established the fraudulent intention on the part of the defendants, since in a law of passing off action the plaintiffs need not establish fraudulent intention on the part of the defendants. In support of the above contentions he relied upon a passage from the book on Trade Marks and Trade Names by Kerly, 12th Edition, which reads as follows:--

22. Relying upon the above said decisions it is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that fraudulent intention need not be proved once reputation is established. Further it is contended that the trial Court having recorded a finding that the plaintiffs group of Companies have reputation in the business field ought to have granted an injunction even though fraudulent intention on the part of the defendants has not been established or proved. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that they have established reputation to such an extent that the word "Kirloskar" either as a trade mark or as a part of the trade name of the plaintiffs and the said word has become almost household word and under which, trade name variety of activities are undertaken. The plaintiffs group of Companies are carrying on various business and are engaged in diverse activities. The word "Kirloskar" is also a part of the corporate name of the first defendant. In order to maintain an action in passing-off the reputation or goodwill is required to be established by the plaintiffs.

23. A perusal of the order of the trial Court shows that the trial Court has recorded a finding regarding reputation which reads as follows:--

"It is true that the plaintiffs group of Companies have reputation in the business field."

In view of the said finding, I propose to consider whether the plaintiffs are further required to prove the fraudulent intention on the part of the defendants. Considering the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and that of the law relating to an action in passing-off, I am of the view, that once reputation has been established plaintiffs need not establish the fraudulent intention or mispresentation in an action for passing off. Therefore, I hold that once reputation is established by the plaintiffs, there is no further proof of fraudulent intention on the part of the defendants required to be proved or established.