TATA SONS LIMITED v. MR.JAYARAM AYAA

1. This application is filed under Order 8 Rule 10 read with Order 13A Rule 3 and 6(1)(a)CPC seeking a summaryjudgment againstthe defendant.in terms ofpara 55 ofthe plaint.

2. A perusal ofthe order ofthis court dated 07.11.2017 would show that the JointRegistrar had recorded the appearance ofthe defendantand also the submission ofthe learned counsel for the defendant that he was served on 03.10.2017.The parties had also gone for mediation butit appears thatthere has been no settlement. On 08.03.2018,this court had noted thatthe time for filing the written statement had expired and the right ofthe defendantto file the written statement was closed. Thereafter, on the next date of hearing, namely, 08.05.2018 before the Joint Registrar, none appeared for the defendant. CS(COMM)583/2017 Page 1 2018:DHC:8607 h

3. The presentsuitis filed by the plaintiffseeking an order ofpermanent injunction to restrain the defendant and its officers, servants, etc. from offering for sale,supplying,advertising,directly or indirectly dealing in any business whatsoever under the name 'TATA SEEDS' or any trade mark/description, etc. bearing the trade mark 'TATA'/'TATA SEEDS'. Other connected reliefs are also sought.

4. It is stated that the plaintiffis the promoter and principal investment holding company ofthe House ofTATA,the oldest business conglomerate r in the country.It is pleaded thatthe trade name/trade mark TATA is derived from the surname of the plaintiffs founder. The plaintiff for its own business activities and those ofits group companies has continuously and consistently been using the said trade mark/trade name since its inception i.e. 1917. The House ofTATA consists of over 100 companies which use the name/trade mark'TATA'as a key essential partoftheir corporate name. Hence, it is pleaded that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the trade mark 'TATA' by virtue of priority in adoption, long, continuous and extensive use,etc.It is also aregistered trade mark.

5. The details ofthe registration ofthetrade mark are given in para 13 of the plaint. It is also pleaded that the said trade mark enjoys an unparallel reputation and also enjoys the status ofa well known trade mark. It is also pleaded thatTATA also deal with other agricultural products.

6. It is pleaded that in July 2017,the plaintiffleamt that the defendant was engaged in illegal and infringing activities using the well known trade mark'TATA'.Investigations revealed thatthe defendant wasengaged in the business of manufacturing, processing and supplying paddy products under the trade name/trade mark'TATA SEEDS'. Details regarding other illegal CS(COMM)583/2017 Page 2 if activities ofthe defendant have also been stated.

7. The defendanthasfailed to fileits written statement.In my opinion,it is a fit case to pass a decree against the defendant under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC.

8. Even otherwise,in my opinion,the defendant has no real prospect of successfully,defending the claim and I see no reason to prolong the matter by sending the parties to trial. Accordingly, the present application is allowed. CSfCOMMI 583/2017

9. In view ofthe above,a decree is passed in favour ofthe plaintiffand against the defendant in terms ofpara 55(i),(ii)and(hi)ofthe plaint. The plaintiffshall be entitled to,on account ofdamages,a sum ofRs.[5] lakhs. A decree is passed in favour ofthe plaintiffand against the defendant for the said sum ofRS.[5] lakhs. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to actual costs which are quantified by the plaintiff in the aforenoted application at Rs.1,65,000/-+ Rs.2,92,770/-=Rs.4,57,770/-

10. The suit stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of. JAYANTNATH,J JULY 11,2018/rb corrected and released on 14.09.2018 CS(COMM) Page 3