We have heard the learned Counsel on both sides.
blue and red respectively.
Under the terms of the companypromise the said trade mark was allotted to the respondent plaintiff.
MICRONIX and logo TM I being shown in the well of M and both letters being in black and white.
The partnership was dissolved on I4th February, 1992 by a companysent order filed in Suit No.
The appellant was one of the partners of the firm.
The trade mark also in black and white companyours.
The learned.
We also examined the relevant authorities oh the subject, cited by the learned companynsel.
The respondent plaintiff thereafter filed the present suit and sought for injunction against the use of the trade name MICROTEL the logo M and the Packing.
2 SCR 567 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. This appeal is directed against an interim order of the High Court by which the appellant is injuncted from using the trade mark MICROTEL, the logo M arid the carton for manufacturing and selling his products which companysist of electrical and electronic apparatus, instruments, TV boosters and TV tuners.
He took simple M as his logo with the letter and back ground designed companypletely differently.
494 of 1991 instituted in the Court of Sub Judge, Delhi.
Thereafter, the appellant defendant started his own business of manufacturing more or less the same products, in the name and style of M s Microtelmatix with the trade name MICROTEL.
The undisputed facts are that both the respondent plaintiff as well as the appellant defendant manufacture and sell various electrical and electronic goods, cable TV, aerial boosters, solid state boosters etc.
We also examined the trade marks and logos as well as the cartons used by both the parties for selling their respective products.
Both the logo M and the trade name MICROTEL were in companyour, viz.,
1994 SUPPL.
carton.
Hence the present appeal by special leave.
Single Judge granted the injunction and the Division Bench dismissed summarily the appeal filed against the same.
M s. Micronix India along with the respondent plaintiff.
since 21st September, 1977, The said firm had a registered trade mark, viz.,
The firm was manufacturing and selling the said electrical arid electronic products, apparatus and instruments etc.
