The defendant replied that RUSTAM was number an infringement of RUSTON as the words RUSTAM INDIA was used.
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 engines as it was an infringement of the registered trade mark RUSTON.
It carries on business in the manufacture and sale of diesel internal companybustion engines and their parts and accessories.
But the High Court proceeded to 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 took the matter in appeal in the Allahabad High Court.
On January 3, 1958 the Additional District Judge, Meerut, dismissed the suit holding that there was numbervisual or phonetic similarity between RUSTON and RUSTAM.
Sometime in June, 1955 the appellant came to learn that the respondent was manufacturing and selling diesel internal companybustion engines under the trade mark RUSTAM.
208 of 1958.
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 respondent is a firm carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of diesel internal companybustion engines and their parts.
Ruston Hornsby India Ltd., a companypany registered in India under the Companies Act, 1956 is a subsidiary of the appellant.
This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated November 23, 1965 in First Appeal No.
5120 in Class 7 in respect of internal companybustion engines.
The appellant is a limited liability companypany incorporated under the English Companies Act with its registered office at Lincoln, England.
The appellant was a registered proprietor of the registered trade mark Ruston being registration No.
On February 17.
1956 the appellant instituted a suit praying for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent and its agents from infringing the trade mark RUSTON.
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 prohibited from using the trade mark RUSTAM.
Ruston and Hornsby India Ltd. is the registered user of the said trade mark and manufactures in India and sells in India internal companybustion engines under the trade mark RUSTON.
