9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (3) TMI 777X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.2013 for which date the summons were served. 5. None appears for the defendants today. 6. The defendants are proceeded against ex parte. 7. I have in judgment dated 30.01.2013 in CS(OS) No.559/2010 titled Indian Performing Rights Society Vs. Gauhati Town Club and for the reasons set out therein, already held that in suits of the nature as the present suit is, no purpose is served by directing ex parte evidence to be led and upon the defendant choosing not to contest, the suit itself can be disposed of on the basis of affidavit accompanying the plaint and the documents filed therewith. 8. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit for restraining the defendant company from using the domain and corporate names with the word AGILENT. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nc., USA is the registered proprietor of the Trademark AGILENT in many countries of the world for a variety of goods and services including in Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, European Union (CTM), Federation of Russia, Ghana, Hong Kong, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, UAE, United Kingdom, the United States of America and Venezuela; that in fact the plaintiff No.1 owns 659 registration for the Trademark AGILENT in 183 countries; that Agilent is a coined word with no independent meaning; that the plaintiff No.1 has a long history ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ark?. 12. The counsel for the plaintiffs has in this regard also drawn attention to Smt. S. Charat Ram Vs. M/s Usha Rectifier MANU/DE/0301/1996, Apple Computer Inc. Vs. Apple Leasing and Industries 1992 (1) Arbitration Law Reporter 93, Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft Vs. Hybo Hindustan AIR 1994 Delhi 239, N.R. Dongre Vs. Whirlpool Corporation (1996) 5 SCC 714 and the recent dicta dated 09.07.2012, though on an application for interim relief but discussing the entire case law on the subject, in CS(OS) No.1654/2011 titled Red Hat Inc. Vs. Mr. Hemant Gupta. 13. Per contra, from the documents, it is established that the defendant having the Trademark AGILENT of the plaintiff No.1 as its trade name though in conjunction with ?Construction? was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the domain name www.agilentconstruction.com and / or from using the plaintiffs Trademark / Corporate name AGILENT or any other mark deceptively similar thereto. 17. However, since the defendant would be required to rectify its name by following the prescribed procedure and which process may take some time, it is deemed expedient to grant three months time to the defendant and to make the injunction operative after the said time. 18. A decree for permanent injunction is accordingly passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant, to be operative after three months herefrom, restraining the defendant from carrying on business in the name of Agilent Construction Pvt. Ltd. and from using the domain name www.agilentconstruction.c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
