Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(12) It is no doubt true that the grant of injunction is an equitable relief available to a party in the suit. A party who does not come to the Court with clean hands and conceals material facts from the Court will not be entitled to the grant of this discretion. The question, however, is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, mentioning of the words "now" and "recently" in the plaint would have any bearing on the grant of injunction. After the order of 19th December, 1986 the plaintiff had made an application for amendment of the plaint in which it tried to explain as to why the words "now" and "recently" had been mentioned in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the application and the plaint. This Court by order dated 19th April, 1995 had allowed the amendment and by virtue of the said order paragraph 11-A was added in the plaint. It will be useful to quote paragraph 11-A for purposes of deciding whether the concealment continues or has it been properly explained as to why the fact of the correspondence was not mentioned originally. Paragraph 11-A of the plaint reads as under: "THE plaintiffs submit that in the year 1974 the defendant No. 2 moved an application before the Registrar of Trade Marks, Calcutta for rectification of the Register and deletion of the petitioner's trade mark Revlon and Revlon Clear. The said application was allowed in 1976. The basis of the defendant's application was non user by the plaintiffs for a period of five years and the defendant's own claim to the said trade marks. It is relevant to point out that 405 in the year 1972 the defendants moved an application for registration claiming Revlon as defendant's trade mark but upon the plaintiff's objection the same was denied to the defendant. Upon the Registrar of Trade Marks passing an order against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Calcutta High Court. The plaintiffs have tried to have the said appeals expeditiously disposed of ever since these were filed, but have not succeeded so far. While the proceedings were pending in the Calcutta High Court, the plaintiffs lawyer M/s. De Penning & De Penning Bombay on receiving a letter from the defendants Advocate desiring settlement corresponded with the defendant's Lawyers at New Delhi. This correspondence continued between the period 1980 to 1986. The defendants wanted a permissive user of Region. The defendants tried to trap the plaintiffs in negotiations and delay and settlement so that they could continue their fraudulent misuser of the plaintiff's trade mark. During the course of entire correspondence, the plaintiffs consistently maintained that they had exclusive ownership of the trade mark. The plaintiffs disputed the defendant's right to use the same. In fact, the defendants wanted a permissive user of the same by an arrangement with the plaintiffs. In the year 1986 the plaintiffs realised that the defendants were merely dragging the whole controversy and did not have honest intentions to abandon their misuser of the plaintiff's trade mark. The defendants started claiming that their products were manufactured in factories owned by the plaintiffs or the plaintiff's collaborators. They also started claiming that Region was their registered trade mark. The defendants further extended the misuse of the plaintiff's trade mark Region to other products and even to two other indisputed trade marks namely "Intimate" and "Charlie". It is when the defendant exposed their fraudulent motivations by misusing the plaintiff's said three trade marks with immunity that the plaintiffs are compelled to institute the present suit. The plaintiffs have at no stage accepted or acquiesced to the defendant's right to use the trade marks. On the contrary the plaintiff have always disputed the defendant's right. That it is now settled law that irrespective of the fact whether a particular product is sold in India or not, the reputation of the product and the trade marks in India as independent of the sale of the goods. The plaintiffs are world leaders in the products of cosmetics and perfumeries etc. and their products marketed under the trade mark Region, Intimate and Charlie have a transborder reputation".