AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Gokal Chand Mital, J.—Universal Woollen Mills-India, Plaintiff filed a suit against the Universal Woollen Mills to restrain it from using the mark ''Universal'' as mark ''Universal'' was Plaintiff''s trade mark. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC was filed to restrain the Defendant from using the trade mark ''Universal'' during the pendency of the suit. The trial Judge by order dated 19th March, 1986 after considering the relevant aspects of the matter dismissed the application. This is Plaintiff''s appeal against the aforesaid order.
The Plaintiff started business in the year 1965 and on 30th July, 1966 got ''Universal Knitting Wool'' registered as their trade mark. On 30th November, 1973, they got ''Universal Knitting Yarn'' also registered as a trade mark. The Defendant is alleged to have started its mills on 1.9.1982 and the Plaintiff is objecting to the use of the word ''Universal''.
The Defendant-concern manufactures knitting wool and knitting yarn and most of the same is used in their sister concern for the manufacture of hosiery goods, and whatever is left is sold in bales and no retail sale is conducted.
It is not the Plaintiff''s case that from the bales etc. there can be any confusion as to who is the manufacturer of the same. The Plaintiff is selling knitting wool and knitting yarn with trade name ''Universal'' whereas the Defendant manufactures the aforesaid item and on the product no label etc is attached, which may carry the word ''Universal'' only the name of the mills carries the word ''Universal'' Similar would be the position in the letter heads etc.
The Plaintiff has placed before the statement of sales and publicity expenses, which is as follows:
Period
Sales figures in Rs
Advertisement expenses in Rs.
1975-76
4087779.45
56375.10
1976-77
5369158.85
75993.10
1977-78
5339326.65
50955 25
1978-79
6363112.18
22995 73
1979-80
5006693.80
20657.75
1980-81
5674163.84
25503.50
1981-82
7594338.55
32072.20
1982-83
5767444.86
65153.00
1983-84
5910241.23
516500
1984-85
5931690.73
3876.00
A reading of the above shows that as the time passed, the sales went up and the advertisement expense gradually decreased and in the last three years the advertisement expenses came down to such an extent that it was almost negligeble as compared to the first three years. This statement of sales and publicity expenses also does not make out a prima facia case for interference with the discretion exercised by the trial Court.
Before me a telephone directory of Delhi was produced and it was shown that hundreds of firms were running their business having initial name ''Universal''. The Plaintiffs counsel objected to the use of the word ''Universal'' and for that reason the telephone directory was produced to show that word Universal'' was being universally used by numerous firms in Delhi and may be another places also.
The Respondent had filed an application Civil Misc. No. 3493 CII/1987 to change its trade name to:
(i) Universal Spinning Mills
(ii) Universal Spinning and Woollen Mills (iii) Universal Spinners
Opportunity was given to the counsel for the Appellant if he was agreeable to any of the aforesaid three names. The Appellant was not agreeable to any of the aforesaid names on the plea that word ''Universal'' should not be used. On these facts, the telephone directory with numerous firms having ''Universal'' as the initial name assumes importance and it cannot be said if prima facie a case for interference with the discretionary order has been made out.
For the reasons recorded above, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.