Tata Sons Ltd. & Anr. vs Lokesh Sharma & Ors

,,

Mukta Gupta, J",,

In the present suit plaintiffs pray for the following reliefs:,,

i. An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners or proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants",,

and agents from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in services of any description baring the trademarks of",,

the Plaintiffs collectively known as TATA house marks and/or any mark/s /logo/trade name deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s,,

registered trademarks, amounting to infringing of the registered trade marks of the Plaintiffs including but not limited to registration No.",,

838432 in class 16, No. 1247045 in Class 35, No. 1247046 in Class 36, No. 1632278 in Class 37, No. 1247048 in Class 38, No. 1247049",,

in Class 39, No. 1247050 in Class 40 , No. 1247051 in Class 41 and No. 1247052 in Class 42;",,

ii. An order for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their partners or proprietors, as the case may be, their officers, servants",,

and agents from selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in services of any description bearing the trademarks of",,

the Plaintiffs collective known as the TATA house marks and/or any mark/s/logo/trade name deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’,,

trademarks, amounting to passing off of the Defendants’ services/goods as that of the plaintiffs;",,

iii. An order in the nature of directions to the proforma Defendants namely Defendant Nos. 7,8,9,10 and 11 to freeze the bak accounts of",,

the Defendants including that of the Defendant Nos. 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 where monies of the various candidates making applications for",,

employment with the Plaintiffs have been deposited across various branches all over India.,,

iv. An order also in the nature of directions to the proforma Defendants namely Defendant Nos. 7,8,9,10 and 11 to disclose the details of",,

the transactions and other information pertaining to the accounts of the Defendants including those of Defendant Nos. 1,2,3,4,5 and 6.",,

v. An order for delivery up of all the goods including but not limited to the stationery/letter heads bearing the impugned marks/logos, dies,",,

blocks, cartons, labels, and any other infringing material to the authorized representatives of the Plaintiffs for the purposes of destruction;",,

vi. An order for rendition of accounts of profits illegally earned by the Defendants on account of the use of the Plaintiffs’ marks and/or,,

any mark/s/logo deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ various trade marks collectively known as TATA house marks and a decree for the,,

amount so found be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs;,,

vii. An order for damages in the sum of Rs. 20.05,000/- in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants on account of the",,

unauthorized use of the impugned marks of the Plaintiffs collectively known as TATA house marks/ name TATA and a decree for the said,,

amount be passed in favour of the Plaintiffs;,,

viii. An order for costs of the proceedings.,,

Summons in the suit were issued to the defendants vide order dated 26th February, 2010 and an interim order was also granted in favour of the",,

plaintiffs, restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 from offering their services by using the trademark TATA or any other trademark which is deceptively",,

similar to the trademark of the plaintiffs. It was also directed that defendant No. 7 to 11 shall freeze the operation of the accounts of defendant Nos. 1,,

to,,

Defendant No. 8 was served on 1st July, 2010, defendant Nos. 2, 5 , 7, 9 and 10 were served on 31st May, 2010 and counsel on behalf of",,

defendant No. 11 appeared on 4th June, 2010. However, since no written statement was filed on behalf of the aforesaid defendants, their right to file",,

written statement was closed vide order dated 6th September, 2010. Defendant No. 4 and 5 were served by means of publication in “The",,

Statesman†dated 9th January, 2013. Since no one appeared on defendant No. 4 and 5 they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 15th April,",,

2014 where defendant Nos. 2, 5, 7, 9 and 11 were also proceeded as ex-parte. Defendant No. 12 and defendant Nos. 1, 8 and 10 were also deleted",,

from the array of parties vide order dated 15th April 2014 and dated 16th December, 2014 respectively. Defendant Nos. 3 and 6 were served by",,

publication in newspapers. Since none appeared on their behalf they were also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18th January, 2016.",,

It is the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiff No. 1, Tata Sons Limited is the principal holding company of the TATA Group and is duly incorporated",,

under the Indian Companies Act, 1913. Plaintiff No. 2, Tata Technologies limited was incorporated in 1994 and is a part of the Tata Group. Plaintiff",,

No. 1 is one of the India’s most trusted business houses and the name/trademark/TATA, is derived from the surname of the founder Jamsetji",,

Nusserwanji Tata and is a household name synonymous with excellence in almost every field of business activity. Plaintiff No. 2 is an automotive-,,

focused engineering and design (E&D) company which provides services to leading automotive and aerospace companies.,,

The use of the trademark and name TATA by the predecessors in business of plaintiff No. 1 dates back to 1868. On account of the highly,,

distinctive nature and pioneering activities of its founder, the name TATA has acquired an excellent reputation from the very beginning and down the",,

decades, the said name has consistently been associated with, and exclusively denotes the conglomeration of companies forming the TATA Group,",,

colloquially also referred to as the “House of TATAâ€. Plaintiff No. 2 uses the mark “TATA†under permission granted to it by the Plaintiff,,

No. 1 under the Brand Equity and Business Promotion Agreement executed with the Plaintiff No. 2.,,

Plaintiff No. 1 being the proprietor of the trademark TATA enjoys exclusive right in the said trademark. In addition to the common law rights that,,

have accrued to the Plaintiffs by virtue of the facts noted above, they are also the registered proprietor of several TATA-formative trademarks in",,

relation to various goods in several classes including registrations in Classes 35 to 42 of the Fourth Schedule of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002",,

pertaining to services. The plaintiffs also own trademark registrations for the word TATA or TATA formative marks in over 50 countries besides,,

India.,,

On 11th February, 2010, the Plaintiff No. 1 received credible information from the Plaintiff No. 2 that the defendants No. 1 to 6 were involved in a",,

false job racket by sending out mass emails on behalf of Plaintiff No. 2 and other group companies of the Plaintiff No. 1 to various aspiring candidates,,

who had registered their names online with the job portal “Naukri. Comâ€. Furthermore, on 14th February, 2010, the Ethics Cell of the Plaintiff No.",,

2 received a query from one of the candidates, namely Mr. Deepak Chandrakar, asking Plaintiff No. 2 about the authenticity/credibility of an email",,

from defendant No. 1 which stated that the candidate’s resume submitted to Naukri. Com had been short listed and that he had been called to the,,

final round of the interview for a position in the Plaintiff No. 2 company. The said email let to further investigation.,,

The modus operandi adopted by the defendant Nos. 1 to 6 was that they would open an account with a bank in some fictitious name or in the name,,

NAME OF THE BANK,"NAME OF ACCOUNT

HOLDER",ACCOUNT NO.

Kotak Mahindra Bank,Sudesh,0180001000230

SBI Bank,Joginder Singh,30882605260

IDBI Bank,Arpit Sehgal,170104000032799

Union Bank of India,Asha Chauhan,344602010084713

PNB,Sanjeev Kumar,370300010223562