TMI Blog2001 (3) TMI 1055X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be deleted from the array of the defendants as per Order dated 30th April, 1999. The defendants were duly served but did not enter appearance and by the Order of this Court dated 23rd August, 1999, the defendants have been proceeded ex-parte. 2. The plaintiff has averred as under:- (a) The plaintiff is the Registered Proprietor of the trademark TATA since 1917 in relation to various goods, in various classes. The plaintiff also has its trademarks registered in 9 other countries, besides India in various classes. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is one of the oldest and largest business conglomerates in India and its reputation spills globally as it has various business abroad as well. (b) The suit arises on the account ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard of the proprietary rights of the plaintiff in the said trademark and defendants not only misappropriated the name of several of the plaintiff's group companies but also registered domain names like jrdtata.com and ratantata.com . It is plaintiff's contention that the defendants cannot under any circumstances claim any rights in the trademark TATA as the plaintiff has not authorised its use by the defendants in any manner whatsoever. That the defendant's use of the impugned mark/name is thus aimed at diverting the business of the plaintiff and would irreparably damage the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff by tarnishing of the asset, i.e., trademark TATA by the aforesaid activities. 3. The defendants had not put i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he vast import of Internet and its user, several Internet users are not sophisticated enough to distinguish between the domain names of the parties. It was also held that with the case of access from all corners of the world, Courts should take a strict view of copying as the potentiality of the harm is far greater because of the easy access and reach by any one from every corner of the globe. The Court also held after analyzing Section 27 and Section 29 of the Trade Merchandise Marks Act, that passing off action can be maintained in respect of services as well as goods. 7. In British Telecom Plc. Vs One in a Million 1999 FSR 1 the Court held that in the case of a registration of domain names of third party trademarks of well-known nam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecause they are more than a mere address. The rendering of Internet services is also entitled to protection in the same way as goods and services are, and trade mark law applies to activities on Internet. 10. Accordingly, the plaintiff-Company is entitled to a decree with costs. The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants in the following terms: (i) The defendants, their partners or proprietors, officers, servants, agents and representatives are restrained from using domain names www.jrdtata.com , www.ratantata.com , www.tatahoneywell.com , www.tatayodogawa.com, www.tatateleservices.com , www.tatassl.com , www.tatapowerco.com , www.tatahydro.com , www.tatawestside.com , www.tatatimken.com or op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
