w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Castrol Limited v/s Jay Bharat Petroleum Products Co. (India)


Company & Directors' Information:- BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L23220MH1952GOI008931

Company & Directors' Information:- CASTROL INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = L23200MH1979PLC021359

Company & Directors' Information:- BHARAT PRODUCTS LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PLC052442

Company & Directors' Information:- JAY BHARAT PETROLEUM (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909MH1950PTC007990

Company & Directors' Information:- JAY AND CO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51909DL1996PTC082695

Company & Directors' Information:- JAY JAY PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U25202PB1987PTC007425

Company & Directors' Information:- PETROLEUM PRODUCTS INDIA LTD. [Strike Off] CIN = U23201DL1989PLC036176

Company & Directors' Information:- JAY CORP;ORATION LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999MH1950PLC007984

    C. S. No. 734 of 2016 & O. A. Nos. 889 to 891 of 2016 & A. No. 5126 of 2016

    Decided On, 25 September 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

    For the Appellant: Arun C. Mohan, Advocate. For the Defendant: R. Sathish Kumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: This suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules and Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C r/w. Sections 51, 55, and 62 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and Sections 27, 134 & 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 for the following reliefs:

(a) A permanent injunction restraining the defendant by himself, its, director/proprietor/partners as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, dealers, retailers, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them or claiming under them from and in any manner infringing the plaintiffs' copyright in Castrol Activ label by using a label with identical or deceptively similar colour scheme of green, red and white, get-up, layout, manner of writing the mark within an identical capsule device for its engine oils, brake oils and lubricants in identical bottles or any other label which are a substantial reproduction of plaintiffs' said artistic works or in any other manner whatsoever.

(b) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant by himself, its director/proprietor/partners as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, dealers, retailers, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off the defendant's lubricants, oils, greases and such other cognate/allied goods as and for plaintiffs' goods by use of label which is a slavish imitation and substantial reproduction of the colour scheme, get up, lay out, placement of features, positioning, manner of writing the mark withing an identical capsule device and trade dress in respect of bottle/containers or any other label/trade dress which is identical or deceptively thereto and in any other manner whatsoever;

(c) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant by himself, its director/proprietor/partners as the case may be, heirs, legal representatives, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, dealers, retailers, distributors, stockists, representatives or any of them from in any manner passing off or enabling others to pass off the defendant's lubricants, oils, greases and such other cognate/allied goods as and for plaintiffs' goods by use of identical shape of bottle, get up, trade dress or any other get up, shape of bottle, trade dress under any other name including PETROSON which is slavish imitation and substantial reproduction of the, get up, layout, trade dress in respect of bottle/containers or any other label/trade dress which is identical or deceptively thereto and in any other manner whatsoever

(d) The defendant be ordered to surrender to plaintiffs for destruction all goods, bottles, cartons, labels, prints, blocks, dyes, plates, moulds and other material bearing the identical artistic work and trade dress under the mark POWER EXEL and/or any other variants deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' artistic work in Castrol Activ label and trade dress whatsoever;

(e) the defendant be ordered to pay to the plaintiffs a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as damages for committing acts of infringement of copyright and passing off;

(f) a preliminary decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs directing the defendant to render true and faithful account of profits earned by them by use of offending trade dress and imitative labels and a final decree be passed in favour of the plaintiffs for the amount of profits thus found to have been made by the defendant after the latter have rendered accounts;

(g) for entire costs of the suit;)

1. The learned counsel appearing for the defendant submitted that as soon as the suit summon was served on the defendant, the defendant stopped infringing the plaintiffs' copyright and they also stopped selling the spurious lubricants and oils in bottles with trademarks, label having an identical colour scheme, getup, layout in identically shaped bottle, trade dress as that of the plaintiffs.

2. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs prayed that the suit may be decreed in terms of the submission made by the defendant's counsel and the said submission may be recorded by this Court.

3. The submission made by the defendant's counsel is recorded.

4. It is pertinent to quote Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

6. Judgement on admissions

(1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions.

(2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub-rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.

5. Considering the submission made by the plaintiffs' counsel and also having gone through the above provision, this Court is inclined to decree the sui

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t in the following manner. Accordingly, as far as prayer (a), (b) & (c) are concerned, the Suit is decreed as prayed for since the plaintiffs proved the suit claim in respect of prayer (a), (b) & (c). On the other hand, taking note of the fact that the defendant had assured that they will never infringe the copyright of the plaintiffs and passing off their goods and they were not infringing the copyright of the plaintiffs with a deliberate intention, the Suit is dismissed in respect of prayer (d), (e), (f) & (g). Consequently, connected Applications are closed.
O R