engines under the trade mark RUSTON.
The appellant took the matter in appeal in the Allahabad High Court.
But the High Court proceeded to.
The suffix India would be a sufficient warning that the engine sold was number a RUSTON engine manufactured in England and the respondent may be permitted to use the companybination RUSTAM INDIA.
The defendant replied that RUSTAM was number an infringement of RUSTON as the words RUSTAM INDIA was used.
208 of 1958.
5120 in Class 7 in respect of internal companybustion engines.
learn that the respondent was manufacturing and selling diesel internal companybustion engines under the trade mark RUSTAM.
On January 3, 1958 the Additional District Judge, Meerut, dismissed the suit holding that there was numbervisual or phonetic similarity between RUSTON and RUSTAM.
The appellant was a registered proprietor of the registered trade mark Ruston being registration No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated November 23, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.
Sometime in June, 1955 the appellant came to.
engines as it was an infringement of the registered trade mark RUSTON.
Ruston and Hornsby India Ltd., is the registered user of the said trade mark and manufactures in India and sells in India internal companybustion.
On July 8, 1955 the appellant wrote through its attorneys a letter to the respondent and called upon it to desist from using the trade mark RUSTAM on its.
The respondent is a firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of diesel internal companybustion engines and their parts.
prohibited from using the trade mark RUSTAM.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1966.
By its judgment dated November 23, 1965 the High Court held that the use of the word RUSTAM by the respondent companystituted infringement of the appellants trade mark RUSTON and the respondent should be.
respondent and its agents from infringing the trade mark RUSTON.
On February 17, 1956 the appellant instituted a suit praying for a permanent injunction restraining the.
Civil Appeal No.
S. Shavaksha, R.A. Shah, 1.
208 of 1958.
1274 of 1966.
B. Dadachanji arid Bhuvanesh Kumari, for the appellant.
hold that the use of the words RUSTAM INDIA was number an infringement because the plaintiffs engines were manufactured in England and the defendants engines were manufactured in India.
The appellant is a limited liability companypany incorporated under the English Companies Act with its registered office at Lincoln, England.
It carries on business in the manufacture and sale of diesel internal companybustion engines and their parts and accessories.
Ruston Hornsby India Ltd., a companypany registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956 is a subsidiary of the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated NOvember 23,, 1965 in First Appeal No.
K. Mehta, K.L. Mehta and Sona Bhatiani for respondent.
