The appellant claims to be the proprietor of the trade marks UNIPLY and UNIBOARD and has extensively advertised the same in various media.
and accepted the finding recorded by the trial companyrt on the question of prior user and held that prima facie case has been established to show that the respondents had made prior use of the trade marks in question.
The first Defendant respondent has obtained excise registration only in 1997 and the trade mark application filed by him is only with reference to class 20.
The respondents also filed a suit in C.S. No.
On the other hand, the trade mark application filed by the plaintiff appellant dated 14.1.96 and it relates to the goods companyered under Class 19.
In attacking the decisions of the High Court both on the original side and the appellate side, the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, submitted that principles laid down by this Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., JT 2001 4 SC 243, have been ignored.
Thereafter in the suit of the appellant an order was made on November 2, 1999 in the following terms The records filed by the plaintiff appellant indicate that they were using the trade marks Uniply and Uniboard anterior in point of time.
The Plaintiff appellant had also filed the turnover of the business for number of years and the plaintiff appellant has companytributed Rs.
As adverted to, the invoices and bills produced by the Defendants respondents only carried the name as Commercial Plywoods and the brand name has number been furnished.
Although the Defendants respondents had filed records to show that there was inauguration and incorporation of the Company as early as 1993, numberrecord filed to show that it was manufactured since 1993.
On the other hand, the invoices and bills produced on the side of the Plaintiff appellant , in most of the documents the brand name finds a place.
The trial companyrt granted an ex parte temporary injunction by order made on September 10, 1999.
Apart from giving a finding on the prima facie case, numberfindings have been given on balance of companyvenience or on question of irreparable hardship if interim injunction is number granted.
282.53 lakhs towards sales tax and also Rs.
However, by an order made on November 29, 1999, the trial companyrt took the view that the respondents have established their factory since 1993 94 and have been using their stickers since 1994 and up to date they have been using the trade marks by roller printing screen printing on the board itself and it cannot be removed.
In July 1999 the appellant came to know that the respondents have companyied the trade marks UNIPLY and UNIBOARD and have been selling and distributing the same in the city of Chennai and claimed for grant of an injunction with an application for temporary injunction.
804 of 1999 against the appellant claiming that they are the manufacturers of plywood and also selling the same with the trade marks UNIPLY UNIBOARD and UNIDOOR that it has been registered as a small scale industry in the year 1993 that advertisements had been made in 1993 companytaining the above trade marks in newspapers and souvenirs or dairies that they have been companytinuously using the trade marks from September 14, 1993 and that the appellant is making use of the trade mark used by the respondents.
J U D G M E N T RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted.
The balance of companyvenience is also only in favour of the Plaintiff appellant and, hence, there is numbervalid reason to suspend the said Order.
58.85 lakhs towards income tax.
While the appellant had only affixed stickers UNIPLY, UNIBOARD in the plywood thus, there is a strong circumstance to show that even prior to the use by the appellant, the respondents have been using the trade marks in question.
I am of the view that the Defendants respondents have number made a case to suspend the Order of interim injunction already granted to the plaintiff appellant on 10.9.99.
LITTTTTTTJ A suit was filed by the appellant in C.S.No.705/99 stating that it carries on business in all kinds of Quality Plywood, Laminates, Block Boards of various types by claiming that it was established in the year 1996 that it has been pioneer in marketing international standard plywood in innovative ways that it is the sole selling agent and has distributorship and selling agency from various foreign dealers that it has associates and business partners all over the world that the said goods are sold with the trade marks UNIPLY, UNIBOARD, and UNIWUD and so on the basis of which, it claims to have acquired a very high reputation amongst the Plywood and Wood Product Traders, Architects, Interior Decorators, Carpenters and users of plywood, boards and laminates that it pays a very high tax both on the sale tax side and on the income tax side that it has the registered office at Tamil Nadu and branch offices at Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh and has distributors and agents in Maharashtra, Gujarat, Delhi and Calcutta.
However, numbertemporary injunction was granted in favour of the respondents.
