Mahendra And Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd vs Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd on 9 November, 2001
"13. Thus, it prima facie stands established on record that
the defendant is endeavouring to pass off its products under
the trade mark "Reddy" with a view to confuse and mislead
the customers by making them believe that the products are
manufactured by the plaintiff company. Even now, the
defendant appears to be having no manufacturing unit for
manufacturing pharmaceutical preparations and it is only
putting the name "Reddy" on the pharmaceutical
preparations manufactured by others. The absence of the
registration of the trade mark in favour of the plaintiff and
the pendency of the application in this regard is of no
consequence for the reason that the defendant's impugned
action is squarely covered within the definition of "passing
off‟. The Apex Court in the case of Mahendra & Mahendra
Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., (2002) 24
PTC 121 (SO, had examined a similar controversy. The name
"Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd." was held to have acquired a
distinctiveness and secondary meaning in the trade circle and
people had come to associate this name with a certain
standard of goods and services. The effort of the
defendant/Mahendra & Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd., to use
the said name was held to be capable of creating an
impression of a connection with the plaintiffs group of
Companies and it was held that such user may affect the
plaintiff prejudicially in the business and trading activities.
The plaintiffs plea for ad interim injunction was found
justified.