AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the Defendant No. 2 submits that the Defendant company has been voluntarily wound up and the TIN number has also been
cancelled. She has handed over documents to establish the same. The documents are taken on record. In view of this development, no purpose
would be served to keep the matter pending or sending the suit for trial.
The present suit relates to the trademark ‘Maggi’ used by the Plaintiffs in respect of instant noodles, soups and other edible products. The
Defendant No. 2 was using the trademark ‘MAGGI’ in respect of ROTI MAKER.
An exparte injunction was passed on 9th May, 2014 by which the Defendants were restrained from using the trademark ‘MAGGI Roti
Maker’ and the domain name www.maggiindia.com. The Defendants having been subjected to voluntarily winding up action, it is directed that a
permanent injunction is liable to be granted against the Defendants and its promoters, directors and their family members from using the trademark
‘MAGGI’. Â
The Plaintiffs’ trademark ‘MAGGI’ has been used on instant noodles and various other food products internationally since the year 1886
and has been in use in India since 1974. The Plaintiffs have sold a large range of products including noodles, sauces, soups etc. under the trademark
‘MAGGI’ in various international markets. The word ‘MAGGI’ is also a registered trademark of the Plaintiffs as set out in paragraph 15
of the plaint. It is registered in respect of Class 29 and 30. The usage of the word ‘MAGGI’ in ‘MAGGI Roti Maker’, which is also is
a kitchen product, would result in infringement and passing off. Moreover, long use in India and abroad as also in advertising, clearly shows that the
word ‘MAGGI’ is now a well-known trademark, not only in India, but internationally as well.
Under these circumstances, the mark ‘MAGGI’ is liable to be protected not just in respect of products which are similar to those for which
the trademark is registered and used but also in respect of other cognate/allied products including products used in kitchens and household products, as
per Section 29(4). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree of declaration and injunction as sought for. Mr. Hemant Singh, learned counsel
for the Plaintiffs, on instructions, submits that he does not wish to press the relief of rendition of accounts especially since the Defendant No. 2 is
wound up.
It is declared that ‘MAGGI’ is a well-known trademark. The Defendants are injuncted in terms of paragraph ‘b’ and ‘c’ of
the Prayer. Â
The suit is decreed in the terms of paragraph (a), (b) & (c) of the Prayer clause. Decree sheet be drawn up. All pending applications also stand
disposed of.