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



Rajdeep Energies Pvt.Ltd., Represented by its Director v/s Res Q Technologies Pvt Ltd., Represented by its Director Magesh


Company & Directors' Information:- M S C TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64201DL2002PLC115040

Company & Directors' Information:- R S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007DL1998PTC093644

Company & Directors' Information:- C L C TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2000PTC105957

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJDEEP ENERGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31102WB2006PTC109825

Company & Directors' Information:- I Q TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2000PLC034058

Company & Directors' Information:- IN TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2010PTC210298

Company & Directors' Information:- S D M TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U22219KA2013PTC070117

Company & Directors' Information:- M & M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U99999MH1990PTC056999

Company & Directors' Information:- A G ENERGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U40108TZ2013PTC019834

Company & Directors' Information:- S L S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U00367KA1988PTC009651

Company & Directors' Information:- A V K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2002PTC113742

Company & Directors' Information:- C V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52311CH2013PTC034790

Company & Directors' Information:- R G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51109DL2000PTC106267

Company & Directors' Information:- L A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900MH2010PTC209195

Company & Directors' Information:- N R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900GJ2000PTC038010

Company & Directors' Information:- H R TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52603MH2003PTC138635

Company & Directors' Information:- C S A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300TN1996PTC037105

Company & Directors' Information:- L AND S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1996PTC104023

Company & Directors' Information:- S B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200AP2015PTC097640

Company & Directors' Information:- U AND I TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200KA1997PTC022565

Company & Directors' Information:- C AND M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26900MH1999PTC118353

Company & Directors' Information:- V V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300HR2008PTC037950

Company & Directors' Information:- S W TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP and Dissolved] CIN = U74140DL1970PTC005326

Company & Directors' Information:- B A TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900PN2012PLC143775

Company & Directors' Information:- J TECHNOLOGIES INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TZ2000PLC009315

Company & Directors' Information:- J N TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC050546

Company & Directors' Information:- J V D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200MH2005PTC157334

Company & Directors' Information:- J K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC108155

Company & Directors' Information:- I E M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2008PTC187513

Company & Directors' Information:- D. A. TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC173738

Company & Directors' Information:- K M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2006PTC150457

Company & Directors' Information:- D. L. TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74120DL2008PTC175475

Company & Directors' Information:- RAJDEEP PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1981PTC011508

Company & Directors' Information:- T & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U33112UP2001PTC026185

Company & Directors' Information:- R P J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300UP1994PTC016135

Company & Directors' Information:- S J R S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200DL2008PTC185244

Company & Directors' Information:- E M TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL2005PTC141257

Company & Directors' Information:- D W TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U50400HR2010PTC041610

Company & Directors' Information:- V INDIA TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TN2008PTC069066

Company & Directors' Information:- R K H TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106586

Company & Directors' Information:- M C A TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U73100MH2003PTC143446

Company & Directors' Information:- A 2 D TECHNOLOGIES (I) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74120MH2010PTC208798

Company & Directors' Information:- V M B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TZ2009PTC015638

Company & Directors' Information:- M Y 5 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72300UP2010PTC039514

Company & Directors' Information:- V & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74900WB2013PTC199124

Company & Directors' Information:- V J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72300DL2007PTC163641

Company & Directors' Information:- E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2000PTC106075

Company & Directors' Information:- L B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900MH2000PTC124946

Company & Directors' Information:- K-TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900KL2006PTC019422

Company & Directors' Information:- J S R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PB2011PTC035189

Company & Directors' Information:- R V TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200TG2007PTC053614

Company & Directors' Information:- V T S TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29309TN1996PLC036728

Company & Directors' Information:- C A G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52335PB2009PTC032939

Company & Directors' Information:- V N TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900TN2006PTC061056

Company & Directors' Information:- H & S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PY2009PTC002365

Company & Directors' Information:- K S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200PB2001PTC024628

Company & Directors' Information:- A TO Z TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PB2011PTC035133

Company & Directors' Information:- V M S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392TN2004PTC054456

Company & Directors' Information:- B H TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74200MH2007PTC175126

Company & Directors' Information:- AT TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900PN2007PTC130827

Company & Directors' Information:- P E TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900PN2010PTC137065

Company & Directors' Information:- M & B TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TN2010PTC074938

Company & Directors' Information:- M & T TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200TG2010PTC071594

Company & Directors' Information:- A A S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74200TG2005PTC046996

Company & Directors' Information:- J K M TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TN2008PTC069232

Company & Directors' Information:- N R P TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900TG2009PTC064078

Company & Directors' Information:- O S TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900CH2013PTC034358

Company & Directors' Information:- T & A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2010PTC205207

Company & Directors' Information:- M & A TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72200DL2014PTC269962

Company & Directors' Information:- A N D TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200KA2012PTC066768

Company & Directors' Information:- A-1 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U31900GJ2012PTC068883

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND 8 TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U52392KL2003PTC016720

Company & Directors' Information:- V R TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64202CH2000PTC023433

Company & Directors' Information:- R K TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900CH2000PTC023550

Company & Directors' Information:- F C TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2007PTC159296

Company & Directors' Information:- S R J TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U72900DL2008PTC176517

Company & Directors' Information:- G TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U29299GJ2001PTC039300

    A. No. 4141 of 2019 in C.S. No. 180 of 2019

    Decided On, 07 November 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

    For the Applicant: M/s. Thenkodi Annam Nelson, V. Jayavigneshwari, Advocates. For the Respondent: M/s. Suba Shiny, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Application has been filed to vacate the order of ex-parte interim injunction dated 08.03.2019 granted in O.A.No.226 of 2019 in C.S.No.180 of 2019.)

1. This application has been filed to vacate the order of interim injunction dated 08.03.2019 granted by this Court in O.A.No.226 of 2019 in C.S.No.180 of 2019. Originally the suit has been filed by the Respondent/Plaintiff for Permanent injunction restraining the Applicant/Defendant and his men from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff’s registered trademark RESQ by using an identical mark RESQ or any other trademark deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark, passing off or enabling other to pass off the Defendant’s products as that the of the Plaintiff’s products by manufacturing, selling , ordering to sell, using he trademark RESQ; order the defendant to surrender the Plaintiff for destruction of all proeucts, labels, business cards, promotional materials etc., using for infringing trademark RESQ, Preliminary decree directing the Defendant to render accounts of profits made using the trademark RESQ and a final decree to be passed in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of profits thus found to have been made by Defendant after verifying the accounts with costs.

2. In the application in O.A.No.226 of 2019 the Plaintiff sought an injunction on the ground that his predecessor in title honestly conceived and adopted the trademark “RESQ” for their products viz., UPS and stabilizers since 27.09.1995 and the same has been put to use continuously and extensively since then. It is further stated that the unique logo adopted by the plaintiff for its well-received trademark “RESQ” comprises of a rectangle in gray/light blue colour and the letters RES written in white colour with blue background and the letter Q written in white colour in red background. The trademark application filed by the applicant was duly examined and advertised by the Registered and there was no opposition filed to the said mark. The Plaintiff with its wide sales network has marketed their products under the mark “RESQ” extensively across the length and breadth of India. The Plaintiff has invested heavily in the advertisement and marketing of its products under the mark ‘‘RESQ’’. By virtue of extensive publicity, long and continuous use of the trademark “RESQ” in respect of UPS and stabilizers, the mark has exclusively identified with the Plaintiff alone. The Defendant is also involved int he identical business, i.e., manufacture, sales and service of UPS and inverters. Despite legal notice issued by them, the Defendants have passing off the goods. Hence Original Application was filed. This court on 08.03.2019 has ordered the interim injunction.

3. The Applicant/Defendant has filed this application to vacate the above interim injunction mainly on the ground that the Plaintiff’s trademark “RES Q” bearing Application No.1491004 was registered with a condition by the registry that ‘SUBJECT TO NO RIGHT OVER THE LETTER ‘Q’ EXCEPT AS SUBSTANTIALLY SHOWN IN THE LABEL’ and when there is a condition imposed, the Respondent/Plaintiff cannot claim exclusive right or use over the Trademark as RES Q as one word. Even otherwise the word RES actually denotes the first three letters of Residual or Rescue, a descriptive word used in Electrical and Electronics field to identify a SINE WAVE. Therefore, the adoption of the first 3 letters of Residual or Rescue as a trademark is a generic adoption.

4. The Respondent/Plaintiff never used the brand word RES Q prior to its registration in the year 2006 and had been falsely claiming the usage of the brand name from 1995. The Applicant/Defendant have been doing the business for more than 13 years without any interruption from the Respondent/Plaintiff. The Plaintiff neither filed any opposition at the time of publication of the defendant’s trademark RESQ nor interfered the usage of their brand name. The Applicant/Defendant trademark has registered under the Trademarks Act and the same is valid upto 22.04.2029. The Respondent/Plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity over the word when he himself is an imitator of the generic word RESQ. The Applicant/Defendant have been using the trademark for more than 13 years without any interruption and dispute. Hence, prayed to vacate the injunction.

5. The learned counsel for the Applicant/Defendant mainly submitted that there is no cause of action for the suit. The Plaintiff has not established that they are prior user from 1995. The Applicant/Defendant is honest and concurrent user. Therefore, they are protected under Section 12 of the Act. Legal Notice dated 7.2.2018 by the Plaintiff has specifically alleged that they are dealing with the goods decades ago, wherein the suit it is submitted as if they are using the mark from the year 1995, which is clearly false statement and reputation has not been established and misrepresentation has also not been established. The Plaintiff dishonestly claimed prior user from 1995. Further the conduct of the plaintiff not taken any action amounts acquiescence. The Plaintiff has suppressed material fact and not come to the court clean hands. The additional documents also sought to be filed has also not filed at the time of filing of plaint. Whereas the Defendant as turnover more than Rs.49 crores. Hence, submitted that the Interim Order liable to be vacated. Since both the brands are different, there is no question of passing off setting in.

6. It is further stated that the RESQ is the common and generic name. Unless it is established that the usage of the brand is identical the Plaintiff is not entitled for any interim injunction. There are humpty number of entities using the word RESQ. No document was produced that the brand RESQ for UPS was advertised extensively by the Plaintiff and the term was associated only with plaintiff products. In fact, the brochures filed by the defendant are expensive and appealing than the photocopies filed by the plaintiff.

7. The Plaintiff dishonestly claimed prior user from 1995. Though the Plaintiff for the trade mark obtained registration in the year 2006, they never claimed the prior user from 27.09.1995. Whereas it is stated that their usage from 21.06.2006. Thereafter, the Plaintiff has obtained the registration for the mark RESQ recently on 23.02.2019 with the user date as 27.09.1995 which has obtained only after the suit has been filed. Further, Defendant also obtained trademark in the name of “RESQ”. The trademark RESQ is registered by both the parties. Taking note that the defendant are continuously doing business for the past 13 years, they are honest and concurrent user. Plaintiff has also not taken any action from the year 2006 when the defendant has obtained the trademark and filed the suit recently, which amounts to acquiescence. Hence, prayed for vacate the injunction order.

8. In support of his submissions he placed reliance of the following judgments:

1. Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., v. Wockhardt Limited [CDJ 2013 MHC 2329]

2. S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by Lrs. vs. Jagannath (Dead) by Lrs. & others [CDJ 1993 SC 657]

3. Ram Krishnan & Sons Charitable Trust Ltd., V. IILM Business School [CDJ 2008 DHC 2753]

4. Wipro Enterprises Limited rep.by Amit Mathur Manager-Legal v. Heinz India Pvt. Ltd., & others [CDJ 2015 MHC 4633]

5. Indo-Pharma Pharmaceuticals Works Limited Mumbai vs. Citadel Fine Pharmaceuticals Limited, Madras. [CDJ 1998 MHC 439]

6. Elder Projects Ltd., & Another vs. Elder Pharmacia LLP & Others [CDJ 2019 DHC 933]

7. Uniply Industries Ltd., vs. Unicorn Plywood Pvt.Ltd., [CDJ 2001 SC 305]

9. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for the Plaintiff submitted that the Plaintiff and his predecessor in title i.e. RESQ TECHNOLOGIES, a partnership firm, have been using the mark RESQ as a predominant feature in its trading style since 08.06.1995. The said partnership firm had obtained all necessary statutory approvals and have been carrying on the business until March 2006. In the year 1999 one Mr. Magesh was inducted as a Partner in the RESQ TECHNOLOGIES, a partnership firm. Thereafter, settling all the other partners incorporated the Plaintiff company on 24.04.2006 and has been successfully running the said concern under the name and style M/s. RESQ TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD., Thus the mark RESQ has been put to continuous and extensive since 1995. It is the contention that the Plaintiff had obtained the registration of the mark RESQ. However, due to inadvertence the user date claimed in all the trademark applications were from the date of incorporation of the Plaintiff company instead of the year 1995 the date of use of the Predecessor. This defect in the user claimed was brought to the notice of the Plaintiff much recently. The Plaintiff states that the mark RESQ has been put to use continuously and extensively since 1995 and the Plaintiff’s mark RESQ has attained immense reputation and goodwill. In view of such long, uninterrupted and extensive usage of the mark RESQ has come to be exclusively associated only with Plaintiff and none else. The Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 07.02.2018 calling upon the Defendant to cease and desist from violating their valuable intellectual property right. Upon investigation the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant has recently started its branch office in Chennai for the whole sate of Tamil Nadu. Thereafter, the Plaintiff in order to rectify the defect in the user claim in its trademark registrations has applied for registration of the mark RESQ with user claim since 1995 and the same came to be registered.

10. The contention of the defendant that they are honest and concurrent user is not applicable here. As early as 2010 the Defendant had knowledge about the prior use of the mark RESQ by Plaintiff. The Defendant had enough time to change their mark but continued to use the same with mala fide intention to cash upon the good will and reputation of the Plaintiff. The very adoption and use of the mark RESQ by the defendant lacks bona fide. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the Examination Report issued for the Defendant’s trademark application, the Defendant conveniently did not advert to the Plaintiff’s application. It is further contended that Section 33 can be pressed into action only if the Plaintiff is aware of the Defendant’s use of the mark much early and has slept over its rights. In the present case it is not the case of the Defendant that the Plaintiff is aware of the Defendant’s use and further no document has been adduced as proof to prove acquiescence. It is also submitted that merely because the defendant shown turnover high same will not entirely any protection. Hence it is her contention that there is no suppression of facts and the suit has been filed to restraint the Defendant from using the mark RESQ as a whole and not the alphabet Q per se. Therefore, the very argument of the disclaimer of the alphabet Q does not hold water. Hence prayed for dismissal of the application and also prayed for injunction to be made absolute.

11. In support of her contention, she relied upon the following judgments:

1. Hindustan Pencils Pvt. Ltd., vs. India Stationery Products Co & Another [1989(9) PTC 61(Del)

2. S.Syed Mohideen v. P.Sulochana Bai [2015(7) SCALE 136]

3. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. & Another v. M.S.S.Food Products [2005 (30) PTC 233 (SC)]

4. N.R.Dongre and Ors. vs. Whirlpool Corporation and others [1996(16)PTC 583 (SC)

12. The Plaintiff’s main case is that the mark “RESQ” conceived and adopted for its products namely UPS and stabilizers since 27.09.1995 and the same has been put to use continuously and extensively by Predecessor in title. The Plaintiff originally commenced its business as a partnership firm thereafter constituted present Private Limited Company and also obtained the registered trademark vide Application No.1491004 dated 10.2.2011. It is their further case that the mark “RESQ” has been put to use continuously and extensively from 1995 till date. Deed of release executed by the erstwhile parter is also filed in this regard. Similarly, Deed of Partnership executed between the parties dated 23.08.1999 also filed and another Deed of Partnership dated 01.12.2003inducting new partners is also filed. All the documents clearly indicate that the Plaintiff’s predecessor in title was doing the business under the name and style of RESQ TECHNOLOGIES from the very inception. The partnership deed in the year 1995 is also shown the name of RESQ TECHNOLIGIES. Pan Card filed along with the Plaint, obtained in the name of RESQ TECHNOLOGIES. Certificate of Registration under Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax also issued in the name RESQ TECHNOLOGIES. Certificate of Incorporation dated 24.04.2006 also issued in the name of RESQ TECHNOLOGIES. The Assignment Deed dated 23.07.2006 filed by the Plaintiff also in the same name clearly indicates that the Plaintiff using the RESQ as sign of the Plaintiff.

13. Examination Report dated 19.04.2007 issued by the Trade Marks Registry for the Plaintiff to the mark RESQ under No.1491004 in Class 9 is also filed along with the plaint. The defendant also got similar registration. The Defendant when filed the application they filed Examination Report issued by the Trade Marks Registry, clearly indicates that the mark RESQ was registered on 12.05.1995. RES Q was registered on 12.5.1995 and RESQ label was registered on 21.6.2006 in RESQ TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD. This fact clearly indicate that the Defendant is also aware of the trade mark registration in the name of the Plaintiff in the name RESQ. Therefore, it cannot be contended by the defendant that since they have also got the registered trademark and they are honest and concurrent user. The Defendant had knowledge about the prior user of the mark RESQ. Examination Report clearly indicate the same. Therefore, the very adoption and use of the mark by the Defendant despite the knowledge lacks bona fide. Therefore, the contention that they are honest and concurrent user cannot be countenanced.

14. Though in the registered trade mark in Application No.1491004 registered on 10.02.2011 user date has given as 21.06.2006 and 24.4.2006 in respect of Application No.1877498 registered on 21.3.2011 user date has been given 24.04.2006 and Application No.3928249 user date has given as 27.09.1995. The Plaintiff has clearly explained that at the time of application registration and trademark number has been given whereas RESQ the word registered 27.9.1995. The user date has been subsequently changed in the application No.392849. The defendant has obtained registration only on 08.12.2014, 22.01.2013, 23.01.2013, 23.01.2013, 31.8.2016 and 23.01.2013. Whereas the user’s date given in the applications as 01.09.2006, 01.09.2006, 01.01.2011, 01.01.2011, 01.01.2011, 01.01.2011 respectively. It is to be noted that even after the user date much later than the user date given in the application No.1491004 by the Plaintiff, Plaintiff user date has been given as 21.06.2006. Whereas the Defendant’s user date has been given after three months by way of registration. Though two obtained similar marks, this Application is for passing off goods. The Plaintiff has field documents as referred above viz., 0 partnership in the year 1995. Pan Card, Sales Tax Registration, Certificate of incorporation, Assignment Deeds etc., to show that they are continuously use of the mark “RESQ” and dealing with the products. In respect of manufacture and sale of stabiliser, UPS and other electronics systems. The invoices filed by the Plaintiff in the year 1996 indicate that in the name of RESQ TECHNOLIGIES the invoices are issued from 1996. The prima facie indicate that the Plaintiff are the prior user of the similar trade marks.

15. The Defendant has filed certificate issued by Chartered15 Accountant to show that the turn over in the year 2006-2017. It is only mere a certificate without any proof of certificate and further in the Inovices filed by them in the typed set indicate that they only dealing with the produces in the name of RESQ much later in the plaintiff’s use. Therefore, these invoices and chartered Accountant certificate will not help the Defendant in any way.

16. In the judgment reported in Orchid Chemicals & Pharmaceuticals’s case (supra) in para 5.8 it is held as follows:

“5.8. Now coming to Section 30 of the Act, it limits the effect of registered trade mark. A perusal of Section 30 of the Act would show that Section 29 of the Act is subjected to it. Therefore, Section 30 of the Act is an overriding provision to Section 29 of the Act. However, the parameters stipulated under Section 30 of the Act will have to be complied with. For example, in a case where a party is using a registered trade mark belonging to another one, if it is in accordance with honest practices in industrial or commercial matters or is detrimental to the distinctive character of the different trade mark, no infringement would occur as it limits the effect of registered trade mark. Similarly, when the usage is indicative of a kind, quality or a quantity, then there will not be any infringement notwithstanding the registration.”

The above judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case for the simple reason that despite knowing the fact that the Plaintiff has already obtained the Registration and the Examination report, the Defendant has adopted the same mark, it cannot be said that they have honestly adopted the trade mark.

17. It is another contention of the defendant that the legal notice sen

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

t by the Plaintiff dated 07.12.2018, it is stated that they came to know about the defendant’s use recently. whereas invoices filed by the Plaintiff clearly indicates that on 14.12.2018 itself invoices of the defendant was obtained by the Plaintiff. However, the suit has been filed belatedly. This also amounts to acquiescence. Invoice dated 14.12.2018 filed. No doubt invoice dated 14.12.2018 but legal notice was sent on 07.02.2019. Therefore it cannot be said that in the interregnum period the plaintiff has acquiesed the mark of the Defendant. 18. Mere delay without anything more is not by itself amounts to acquiescence. Further the defence of latches and delay in equity can be put up by a person who fairly and honestly adopted the mark and not by the person who is adopted the mark knowing well that the plaintiff has already obtained registration. Therefore, the above contention also cannot be pressed into service. Further, what has to be seen in the interim injunction stage is the prima facie case. Registration Certificate of the Plaintiff clearly indicate that word RES Q registered in the year 1995. Besides 2001 also they have obtained the registration on 10.2.2011 and 21.3.2011 with user date of 21.06.2006 and 24.04.2006. Whereas the Defendant has obtained registration subsequently. User date 1.9.2006 and 1.1.2011 much after the Plaintiff. Therefore, as discussed above, the Plaintiff has filed necessary documents to show that the predecessor in title was continuously using the mark dealing with the similar products. Such being the position, on prima facie the Plaintiff is established the case for injunction. Accordingly the Order passed by this Court is made absolute. The application filed by the Defendant is dismissed. 19. In the result, Application No.4141 of 2019 in O.A.No.226 of 2019 in C.S.No.180 of 2019 is dismissed and the Order passed by this Court in O.A.226 of 2019 in C.S.No.180 of 2019 granting interim injunction is made absolute.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

26-08-2020 Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd. & Another Versus Unwired Planet International Ltd. & Another United Kingdom Supreme Court
25-08-2020 Evergrwoing Investments & Consultants Private Limited Versus Tomorrowland Technologies Exports Limited & Another High Court of Delhi
20-08-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai Versus M/s. Sankhya Technologies Pvt Ltd., Chennai. High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-07-2020 M/s. Luminous Power Technologies (P) Ltd. & Another Versus Kanwar Sain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-07-2020 M/s. Sai Srinivasa Properties & Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represent by its Director N. Vivekananda Reddy Versus Krishnappa & Others High Court of Karnataka
26-06-2020 Uber Technologies Inc. Versus Heller Supreme Court of Canada
18-06-2020 M/s. CSK Technologies, Hydrabad (Telangana) Versus South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Chhattisgarh & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
10-06-2020 Director of Income-Tax, International Taxation Versus M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
05-06-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited Versus NCS Computech Private Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Microvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 M/s. Comstar Automative Technologies Private Ltd., (Formerly known as Visteon Powertrain Control Systems India Private Limited) Keelakaranai Village, Malrosapuram Post, Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu District V/S The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Company Circle - I (3), Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
27-02-2020 Sporta Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Edream 11 Skill Power Private Limited High Court of Delhi
14-02-2020 SKF Technologies (India) Private Limited, Bangalore & Another National Company Law Tribunal Bengaluru
03-02-2020 Lakshmi Rauschenbach, Rep. by Power of Attorney Anand Sasidharan Versus Valuesource Technologies (P) Ltd, Rep. by its Director Christian Lippens & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-01-2020 Sarine Technologies Ltd. Through Authorised Signatory Prachi Bhardwaj Versus Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation Through Partner Dhaval Dahyabhai Diyora High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
31-01-2020 In Phase Power Technologies Private Limited V/S ABB India Limited Competition Commission of India
09-01-2020 M/s. Grant Thornton India LLP., New Delhi Versus 63 Moons Technologies Limited, Formerly Known as Financial Technologies (India) Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 Quick Heal Technologies Limited V/S Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
07-01-2020 Keltech Energies Ltd V/S C.C.E. & S.T., Mangalore Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore
18-12-2019 M/s. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Crompton Greaves Ltd. Supreme Court of India
16-12-2019 M/s. Taranga Technologies, Andhra Pradesh Versus M/s. Neels Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
11-12-2019 Sterlite Technologies Limited Rep by Chief Manager K. Sundar & Another Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep by Managing Director, Harish Chandra Mathur Lane, Janpath, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
01-11-2019 Smartchem Technologies Limited & Another Versus The Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
20-09-2019 Rajdeep Laha & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-09-2019 M/s. Contentra Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Nikhil Pal High Court of Delhi
30-08-2019 Siemens Enterprise Communications Ptv Ltd Now Known As Progility Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Central Bureau of Investigation High Court of Himachal Pradesh
27-08-2019 Ani Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dinesh D. Shelar High Court of Delhi
07-08-2019 Associate High Pressure Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Union Bank of India Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal At Mumbai
23-07-2019 M/s. N.L. Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ernakulam South, Represented by C.V. Varghese, Director, Irinjalakuda Versus Commissioner of Customs, Cochin High Court of Kerala
17-07-2019 S/s Bright Technologies Versus The Commissioner Commercial Tax High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
24-05-2019 Arjun Technologies (India) Ltd Versus Karur K.C.P. Packagings Ltd National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
25-04-2019 Exelan Networking Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, Premdoss Samson, Adyar & Others Versus M/s. Cadensworth India Limited, Merged with M/s. Redington India Ltd., Rep. by K. Shanmugam, Senior Manager Accounts, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-04-2019 M/s. Gameskraft Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Directors & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, By the Inspector of Police, Mumbai & Another High Court of Karnataka
28-03-2019 Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd. Versus Union of India Through Joint Secretary & Others High Court of Karnataka
21-03-2019 NEC Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shivamogga Smart City Limited A Public Limited & Another High Court of Karnataka
05-03-2019 Income Tax Officer Versus Smartchem Technologies Ltd. Supreme Court of India
27-02-2019 Veisa Technologies Versus Assistant, Commissioner of Income Tax & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-02-2019 M/s. DVB Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus CGST & Excise, Siliguri Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Regional Bench Kolkata
21-01-2019 B. Shekar & Another Versus Stanpower Technologies Hyderabad, Rep. by its Partner Timothy Prakash & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-01-2019 P. Murali Versus M/s. Airmedia Technologies Chennai Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Nirmala Devi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-12-2018 Endurance Technologies Ltd. Versus State of Haryana & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
07-12-2018 SATEC ENVIR Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus WAAREE Energies Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
22-11-2018 Greenko Energies Private Limited & Others Versus The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission, Rep.by its Secretary In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
16-11-2018 K.M. Projects & Technologies (Pvt) Ltd., Rep.,by its authorized signatory A. Suresh Kumar, Chennai Versus M/s. Bhanu Constructions Co.Ltd., (A1) Rep.,by its Managing Director B.V. Rao & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2018 M/s. FCI Technologies Services Limited, Cochin Versus THE Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
06-11-2018 Samir Agrawal A-206 Versus ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Others Competition Commission of India
02-11-2018 Netsweeper Technologies Private Limited, Chennai & Others Versus Netsweeper Inc, A Company having its registered office at Ontario, Canada, Represented by its Authorized Signatory, N. Krishnan & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
31-10-2018 Swaranjeet Singh Versus Melco Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-10-2018 Vsoft Technologies Private Versus Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad
15-10-2018 Income Tax Office, Ward-1(4) Versus Covidh Technologies Limited Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Hyderabad
12-10-2018 HCL Technologies Ltd, ELCOT, Madurai Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Deputy Inspector of Labour,III Circle, Madurai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
20-09-2018 M/s. Atria Convergence Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Authorised Signatory, P. Kailasam & Another Versus M/s.R.G. Network @ M/s.Raghavendra Cable Vision, Represented by N.M. Devaraj High Court of Karnataka
20-09-2018 Advanced Creative Technologies Limited Versus D4 Cash Investors Limited Court of Appeal of New Zealand
12-09-2018 Meru Consultants & Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Director V. Subramanian, Chennai Versus The Commissioner, Chennai City Municipal Corporation, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-09-2018 The Acit, Corp Circle-291) Versus M/s. Prudent Technologies P. Ltd Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Cochin
04-09-2018 Rajnish Kohli Versus HCL Technologies Ltd. High Court of Delhi
24-08-2018 Bizdata Technologies Pvt. Ltd Versus Ito Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chennai
23-08-2018 M/s. KHEC Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd, Rep by its Authorized Representative Paraman, Chennai Versus R.S. Gowrishankar High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-08-2018 M/s. Bebo Technologies Pvt. Ltd Versus Dcit, Mohali Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh
17-08-2018 Rajdeep Ghosh Versus State of Assam & Others Supreme Court of India
16-08-2018 Atcom Technologies Ltd. Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
14-08-2018 Simbus Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru Versus Vector E-Commerce Private Limited, Bengaluru & Another High Court of Karnataka
08-08-2018 M/s. Shilpi Cable Technologies Ltd. Versus Macquarie Bank Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
06-08-2018 M/s. Aithent Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Archana Verma High Court of Delhi
01-08-2018 Transvahan Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Managing Director, S.R. Venkatesan & Another Versus Sepson India Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Executive Director/ Chief Executive Officer, Ananthraj Hardar Nabhiraj & Others High Court of Karnataka
30-07-2018 Diyora & Bhanderi Corporation through its partner & Others Versus Sarine Technologies Ltd. Supreme Court of India
30-07-2018 KLA Construction Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Chadha Sugar & Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
30-07-2018 Sterlite Technologies Ltd. Versus C.C. Ahmedabad Customs Excise amp Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
17-07-2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore & Another Versus M/s. Symbol Technologies India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore High Court of Karnataka
17-07-2018 Tiebeam Technologies India Private Limited, (formerly Solix Systems Private Limited), Represented by its Director Prmelatha Gundavelli Versus The State of Telangana, represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Secretariat & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
16-07-2018 M/s. Intelsys Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
13-07-2018 Alkraft Thermo Technologies Pvt. Ltd V/S Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai North Commissionerate Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
13-07-2018 M/s. Binsys Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Another Versus High Court at Calcutta & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
06-07-2018 Minna Pirhonen Through her Representative Rajdeep Lahiri Versus The State of Goa & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
03-07-2018 M/s. Enable Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Shankar Krishna Murthy High Court of Delhi
03-07-2018 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru & Another Versus M/s. Akamai Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Karnataka
03-07-2018 Infoplus Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director, Sakunthala Devi Versus Pondicherry University represented by its Registrar, Puducherry High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-06-2018 Ducon Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
01-06-2018 M/s. Celex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Through Director/authorized Signatory Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
29-05-2018 Axiscades Aerospace & Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known as Axis Aerospace & Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
21-05-2018 In Re: Akamai Technologies Inc Authority For Advance Rulings Income Tax New Delhi
09-05-2018 M/s. Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus GST & CCE, Chennai North Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
09-05-2018 Qube Cinema Technologies Pvt. Ltd V/S GST & CCE, Chennai North Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Chennai
07-05-2018 Babin Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Kinfra Techno Industrial Park, Malappuram Versus Karthika, Choorikovval, Kodakkad P.O., Kasaragodu Dist. & Another Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram
07-05-2018 ATCOM Technologies Limited Versus Y.A. Chunawala & Co. & Others Supreme Court of India
04-05-2018 Cummins Technologies India Ltd V/S CCE & ST, Meerut-II Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
03-05-2018 M/s. Avalon Technologies (P) Ltd., Rep by its Authorised signatory P. Sylvester Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (C&R) High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-05-2018 Savita Oil Technologies Ltd V/S Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal West Zonal Bench At Mumbai
24-04-2018 Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-III Versus HCL Technologies Ltd. Supreme Court of India
23-04-2018 Covidh Technologies Limited (formerly ?Aptus Industries Limited?) Versus Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
06-04-2018 Shango Technologies Private Limited V/S Chemplast Sanmar Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-03-2018 Pragati Vidyaniketan High School Rep. by its Correspodnent Madhusudan Versus Mind Shaper Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Hyderabad
14-03-2018 Vayam Technologies Ltd. Versus Hewlett Packard Finacial Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. High Court of Delhi
13-03-2018 Balwinder Singh Versus The Managing Director, INTEX Technologies (India) Ltd. & Another Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT Chandigarh
08-03-2018 Vayam Technologies Limited Versus Hewlett-Packard Financial Services (India) Private Limited High Court of Delhi
26-02-2018 KLA Construction Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus CKG Realty Pvt. Ltd. National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
23-02-2018 In the matter of: Sonik Technologies Private Limited, Bikaner Versus Registrar of Companies, Jaipur National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
23-02-2018 Shilpi Cables Technologies Ltd V/S C.C.E.-Alwar Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi