Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Texmo in Aqua Pump Industries vs Rajeev Dubey on 12 July, 2019Matching Fragments
2. Today, when the matter is taken up for final disposal, the learned counsel for plaintiffs is present.
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the manufacturers of different types of electrical motors and pumps. One Mr.Ramaswamy Kumaravelu, the Managing Partner of the plaintiffs and his brother http://www.judis.nic.in Ramachandran(died) started trading as TEXMO Industries secured registered of the Trademark TEXMO with effect from 21.05.1976 as joint proprietors in respect of electrical motors (not for land vehicles) pumps included in Class-7, including Centrifugal pumps, mono-block pumps, domestic pumps, submersible pumps and reciprocating piston pumps, sugar cane crushers (machines). As licensed users of the trademark “TEXMO”, the plaintiffs 1 & 2 had commenced their business on 01.04.1974 and 12.11.1982 respectively. Based on the agreement between the parties, the Registrar of Trademarks passed an order on 20.04.1998. By virtue of the said order, the plaintiffs became the registered proprietors of the trademark TEXMO and their registered Trademark Nos.315049 (SP-I), 315049(SP-II) & 315050 (SP-I), 315050(SP-II) which were later renumbered as 2702778, 2702779, 2702780 & 2702781 respectively.
(x) Components and spares for the above products.
5. The plaintiffs have been extensively and substantially using the registered trademark “TEXMO” in respect of the aforesaid goods since 1974 throughout India and thereby, they have acquired enormous goodwill and reputation. By manufacturing the said goods under the trademark “TEXMO”, the plaintiffs earning a huge turnover every year. http://www.judis.nic.in
http://www.judis.nic.in 7.2. The learned counsel would argue that manufacturing of identical products under a deceptively similar mark to that of the plaintiffs' well known mark "TEXMO" shows the dishonest intentions and fraudulent activity of the defendant. He also argued that the defendant has no right to adopt and use the plaintiffs' registered trademark “TEXMO”. He therefore prayed that the defendant may be restrained from using the offending identical trademark, "DEKMO" otherwise, the plaintiffs would be put to great loss and hardship.
8. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiffs and perused the materials available on record.
9.1. In view of the submission made by the plaintiff's counsel, this Court finds that the plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the trademark TEXMO, which is clearly evident from Ex.P2, Legal Use Certificates of the Trademark Nos.2702778, 2702779, 2702780, 2702781. As per Ex.P2, the plaintiffs are the exclusive registered proprietors of the trademark TEXMO in respect of the goods stated in paragraph No.4 of this judgment. It is also seen that the plaintiffs' registration over the trademark TEXMO is valid and subsisting. http://www.judis.nic.in KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J., mrr 9.2. It is crystal clear that the defendant is manufacturing, selling and distributing Machine and Machine tools, Motors and Engines (Except for Land Vehicles), Agricultures implements and other hand operated pumps (Machine) under the offending trademark DEKMO which is deceptively and phonetically similar to the plaintiffs' Trademark “TEXMO”. So the above such act of the defendant would absolutely amounts to infringement of the plaintiffs' registered trademark, “TEXMO”. Therefore, the plaintiffs proved the suit claim beyond doubts.