AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
YEAR,GROSS SALES (Rs.)
2006-2007,"15,92,685.21
2007-2008,"18,96,851.09
2008-2009,"19,33,271.00
2009-2010,"23,49,198.00
2010-2011,"28,87,457.00
2011-2012,"38,79,430.00
2012-2013,"35,63,059.00
2013-2014,"46,62,628.39
It is also averred that the plaintiff has spent considerable amount of money for advertisement of its products.,
Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that on 25th December, 2014 it came to the notice of the plaintiff that the defendant no. 1 had started",
publishing law books under the trademark UNIQUE / UNIQUE 20 and that the defendant nos.2, 3 and 4 are the dealers/distributors/agents of the",
defendant no.1 and involved in the sale and distribution of books published by the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 in his written statement has,
admitted that the defendant has started using the trademark from 2012, which in any case is after the use by plaintiff.",
A pictorial representation of the plaintiff's and the defendant's trademarks relied upon by learned counsel for the plaintiff is reproduced,
hereinbelow:-,
Vide order dated 5th April, 2016, the following issues were framed:-",
“(i) Whether the plaintiff is the prior adopter and user of the trade mark “UNIQUE� OPP,
(ii) Whether the trademarks/ words “UNIQUE†and “UNIQUE 20†used by the defendants are similar to the trademarks of the,
plaintiff? OPP,
(iii) Whether the trade dress containing the trademarks/ words “UNIQUE†and “UNIQUE 20†used by the defendants is similar to,
the trade dress of the plaintiff? OPP,
(iv) Whether  the  use  of  the  trademarks/  words “UNIQUE†and “UNIQUE 20†by the defendants has,
resulted in passing off of the goods of the defendants as those of the plaintiff? OPP,
(v) Whether the use of the trade mark “UNIQUE†by the defendants would cause deception and confusion in the market and among the,
public? OPP,
(vi) Whether the writing style or artwork of the trade marks “UNIQUE†and “UNIQUE 20†used by the defendants, has infringed",
the copyright of the plaintiff in the writing style or artwork of her trademarks, i.e. “UNIQUE†and “UNIQUE 20â€? OPPâ€",
The plaintiff has filed its evidence by way of two affidavits of PW-1 Mr. Nitin Tyagi and PW-2 Prof. Hari Dutt Tyagi.,
PW-1 has proved use of the trademark and sale of books from the year 1990 by exhibiting cover page and back page of the books as Exhibit PW-,
1/2 to PW-1/72. PW-1 has also proved bills/invoices of the plaintiff's books as Exhibit PW-1/73 to PW-1/81. PW-1 has proved similarity of trade dress,
by exhibiting documents Exhibit PW-1/94 to PW-1/101.,
Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and having perused the ex parte evidence as well as documents placed on record, this Court is of the",
opinion that the plaintiff has proved the facts stated in the plaint and has also exhibited the relevant documents in support of its case. It is pertinent to,
mention that the defendant no.1 has so blatantly copied the trademarks and the trade dress of the plaintiff that the defendant is using trademark,
UNIQUE 20 for the book containing 30 questions, which is a wrong description of the content of the books.",
In the opinion of this Court, the triple identity test is satisfied as the defendants have made use of a deceptively similar mark i.e. UNIQUE in",
relation to identical goods (law books) having identical trade channels (products sold vide same trade channels).,
Since the plaintiff’s evidence has gone unrebutted, said evidence is accepted as true and correct. In the opinion of this Court,",
the defendant has deliberately stayed away from this Court’s proceeding with a view to frustrate the plaintiff’s claim. The said act is,
unjustified.,
Consequently, present suit is decreed in accordance with prayer (a) and (d) of the plaint. The costs shall amongst others include the lawyer’s",
fees as well as the amount spent on Court-fees. Registry is directed to prepare a decree sheet accordingly.,