Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2013 (3) TMI 777

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rved. 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 inter alia the case of the plaint .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs Trademark is a 'Well Known Trademark' within the meaning of Section 29(4) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 and the plaintiffs have a reputation in India and use by the defendant of the word AGILENT in its trade and domain name will vest an unfair advantage in the defendant, detrimental to the distinctive character and repute of the registered Trademark of the plaintiffs. 10. The plaintiffs have pleaded that the plaintiff No.1 Agilent Technologies, Inc., 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, Ecua .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unteer regularly in their communities such as ?Agilent After School? benefiting as many as 40000 students annually; that the plaintiffs website www.agilent.com is accessible all over the world; that owing to long, extensive and continuous use world over, AGILENT is a well known Trademark as defined in Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act and entitled to protection. 11. On the basis of the documents in support of the aforesaid, I am satisfied that the plaintiffs Trademark AGILENT qualifies as a ?Well Known Trademark?. 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, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Act, 1956 also prohibits registration of a company in a name which is identical with or too nearly resembles the name by which a company in existence has been previously registered or a registered trade mark, or a trade mark which is subject of an application for registration, of any other person under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 16. I am therefore of the view that the plaintiffs have made out a case for injuncting the defendant from carrying on business in the name of Agilent Construction Pvt. Ltd. and from using 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 it .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates