Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Defendants have opposed the applications, inter alia, on the following grounds : that the plaintiffs are neither the proprietors of the trade mark "GRANDLAY" nor the firm Grandlay Electricals (India). Defendant No. 2 (in Suit No. 1616/90) as per the arbitration award dated December 5, 1985 was awarded cinema division of Grandlay Electricals (India) with firm name M/s. Grandlay Electricals (India) Cinema. The plaintiffs/applicants are neither trading under the name "GRANDLAY ELECTRICAL (INDIA)" nor using the trade mark "GRANDLAY" in relation to insulated wires and cables. It is wrong and false that Shri K.L. Batra and Shri Sudhir Batra have relinquished and assigned all their rights, title and interests in the partnership firm Grandlay Electrical (India) and the plaintiffs have become the absolute owners and proprietors of the trade mark "GRANDLAY" and as such have got the exclusive right to the words "GRANDLAY CABLES" as part of their trading style. The defendants have adopted trade mark "BATRA HENLAY" with reflective decorative geometrical device in relation to the goods being manufactured by them, such as fire retardant cables, automobiles, aircraft, ship, mining, control and ribbon cables, wiring harness. Defendants are not using the "GRANDLAY GROUP" as trade mark in relation to their business and goods. The words "GRANDLAY GROUP" are only an indicia or a house mark of the defendants. They are well within their right to use the words "GRANDLAY GROUP" as per the arbitration award. The defendants' trade mark i.e. "BATRA HENLAY" is neither identical nor deceptively similar to the aforementioned trade mark "GRANDLAY". The apprehensions of the plaintiff/applicants are imaginary and without any basis, whatsoever. The trade mark of the defendants i.e. "BATRA HENLAY" is a composite trade mark. It consists of the two words i.e. "Batra" and "Henlay" and as such is altogether different from "GRANDLAY". The plaintiffs are not the registered proprietor of the trade mark "GRANDLAY". It is wrong that the defendants by the use of the trade mark "BATRA HENLAY" are passing off their manufactured goods as that of the plaintiffs. It is also wrong and false that the use of the said trade mark is tantamount to the infringement the trade mark of the plaintiff i.e. GRANDLAY". The applications are false and frivolous and are liable to be dismissed.

tiffs.

38. Learned Counsel for the defendants has argued that the trade mark which is being used by the defendants is a composite trade mark. Hence nobody would take and treat the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiffs. In any case, the word "BATRA" is sufficient enough to distinguish the trade mark of the defendants from that of the plaintiffs. The contention of the learned Counsel I feel is devoid of any force. While building up the said argument the learned Counsel is oblivious of the fact that both the parties to the present suit are Batras. The said word cannot be a distinguishing feature of the trade mark of the defendants in order to clothe it with a distinctive trait and personality. The only thing which the Court has to find out on a comparison of the two trade marks is as to whether there is a visual similarity or phonetical similarity in between the trade marks of the plaintiffs and that of the defendants which is likely to cause a confusion in the minds of the unwary public which may lead to confusion in their mind with regard to the identity of the goods and there is likelihood of their considering the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiffs.

40. The trade mark "GRANDLAY" as l have already observed above fell to the share of the plaintiffs on the basis of a consent award dated December 5, 1985. They have been using the said trade mark in respect of their electrical goods since December 7, 1985 (vide para 10 of the plaint). The plaintiffs have placed on record a large number of documents to prima facie show and prove that they have been manufacturing and selling electrical goods under the said name. In this connection they have placed carbon companies of the invoices (vide pages 2 to 43) for the period 1986 of 1990. They have also filed the statement of quarter wise grand turnover for the period 1986 to September 30, 1990. They have also placed cuttings from different newspapers with regard to the advertisements during the period from 1986 to 1990. The plaintiffs have also placed on record photocopy of a letter from Luna Electricals, Engineers & Contractors, to M/s. Grandlay Electrical (India), Grandlay Complex, New Friends Colony, Mathura Road, New Delhi, dated November 30, 1990 in order to show and prove that the defendants are carrying on their business under the name and style M/s. Grandlay Electrical (India), Grandlay Complex, New Friends Colony, Mathura Road, New Delhi. The said letter was, however, delivered to the plaintiffs. This goes to show that the trade and business of the defendants can be treated as that of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs in reply to the said letter clarified that they are not having any office/branch/showroom/godown or agent in Grandlay Complex, New Friends Colony Mathura Road, New Delhi. It shows that the defendants have been using the trade mark "GRANDLAY" even in November, 1990. The defendants have admitted (vide para 16 of their written statement in Suit No. 1616/90) that they have adopted a composite trade mark "BATRA HENLAY" relating to the goods manufactured by them. However, they have not disclosed therein as to since when they are using the trade mark "BATRA HENLAY". Towards close of the said para they have asserted that they are well within their right to use the words "GRANDLAY GROUP" as an epithet or by way of distinctive indicium or as a source mark to denote the source of their emanation. Thus it is clear from above prima facie, that the defendants are using the words "GRANDLAY" as well as "BATRA HENLAY" in connection with their electrical goods. The plaintiffs in this connection have placed on the file certain advertisements given by the defendants in the Hindustan Times daily dated April 19, 1990, May 13, 1990 and in the Sandhya Times dated May 9, 1990. The said advertisements reveal that the defendants are carrying on their trade and business under the name and style of "BATRA HENLAY". They are also using the words "GRANDLAY GROUP" in the said advertisements.