Bling Telecom Pvt. Ltd. vs Micromax Informatics Ltd.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

I.A. Nos. 13939-13940/2010 (Exemption)

Learned Counsel states that the documents in original or their certified copies would be filed within eight weeks.

Applications are disposed of in terms of the statement.

I.A. No. 13941/2010 (U/S 149)

It is submitted that the plaintiff would make good the deficient Court fee within a week. The application stands disposed of subject to compliance with the statement.

CS (OS) 2119/2010

Issue summons to the Defendants, returnable before the Court, on 8th February, 2011. Service shall be effected through Registered post AD in addition. Dasti in addition.

I.A. No. 13938/2010 (Order XXXIX, R1 and 2, CPC)

The plaintiff claims permanent injunction, besides other consequential reliefs. It is submitted that the plaintiff was incorporated w.e.f. 29th July, 2009 inter alia in the business of marketing mobile phone handsets. The plaintiff submits that it has been using the mark BLING and relies upon the trademark search report to the effect that its application for registration of the mark is pending w.e.f. 7th July, 2009. To establish prima facie usage, the plaintiff relies upon various agreements entered into with its representatives and dealers. It also relies upon the copies of advertisements issued seeking to market its product. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the Defendant''s proposed use of the mark BLING and places on record legal notice issued by the Defendant on 4th October, 2010 claiming that it is using the mark BLING. The Defendant''s notice would disclose that it claims to have conceived of the mark BLING and alleges having conducted a search in the Trademark Registry''s office in February, 2010. The plaintiff apprehends that unless an ad interim injunction is granted, it is likely to suffer an injury.

Having considered the submissions and the materials on record, the Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has prima facie established that it is the prior user and the adopter of the mark BLING. Its company was incorporated on 29th July, 2009. The BLING mark is part of its corporate name. A copy of the trademark Search report dated, 7th July, 2009 has also been placed on the record. It is in the form of an extract of the website of the Trademark Office containing the data base of the pending applications. In view of this, the Court is satisfied that the plaintiff is the prior user and adopter of the mark BLING. The Defendant appears to have conceived the idea -if not adopted it - only sometime in February - March, 2010. Since both the marks pertain to the same product, prima facie, if the Defendant is allowed to use it unhindered, the same would result in consumer confusion and possible injury to the plaintiff''s goodwill and reputation. In the circumstances, the Defendant, its employees, agents, representatives, etc. or any one acting on their behalf are hereby restrained from using the mark BLING or any other representation deceptively or confusingly similar to the plaintiff''s mark BLING or the logo adopted by it till the next date of hearing.

Provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 3, CPC shall be complied within five days. Notice and order dasti.