JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. Plaintiffs have filed this suit for perpetual injunction, infringement of trade marks, passing off and damages etc. Counsel for the plaintiffs has contended that plaintiff No. 1 M/s. Castrol Limited is a Company incorporated under the law of England and carrying on business on a large extensive scale in the manufacture processing and marketing of high grade lubricating oil products in the UK and other countries. Plaintiff No. 2 M/s Castrol India Limited is having its registered office at Bombay and regional office at New Delhi. Plaintiff No. 2 is carrying on business on a large and extensive scale in processing of and trading in high grade automotive and industrial lubricants, greases, brake fluids, wood preservatives and various other speciality of products in India. Plaintiff No. 2 set up its business in 1979. In view of the statutory requirement, plaintiff No. 1 reduced its equity shares capital and plaintiff No. 2 also reduced its equity pursuant to the scheme of amalgamation with Indrol
Lubricants & Specialities Pvt. Ltd. The name was changed to Indrol Lubricants and Specialities Ltd. w.e.f. 1.11.90 to the present name-Castrol India Limited.
2. It is contended that plaintiff is the registered proprietor in India of several trade marks including the trade mark registered under No. 14% in Class 4 as of 29th June, 1942 and the same has been used. The word Castrol or substantial and dominant part thereof forms a prefix. The word Castrol appears in an oblique script across the horizontal member of the portion. Plaintiff No. 2 is also registered proprietor of the trade mark Indrol and the plaintiff has been exclusively advertising their products as Castrol products, the details of the expenditure incurred on advertisements has been given in paragraph 12 of the plaint.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that trade mark Castrol in respect of engine and industrial oils and lubricants, greases has become distinctive and exclusively associated with the goods of the plaintiffs.
4. Defendant No. 1 who is proprietor of defendant No. 2 is dealing in the petroleum products, lubricants, oils under the name of Castola Lubricants. Trademark Castola has been prominently displayed on the sign board of defendants 1 and 2 in respect of all types of lubricants. After the filing of the suit, the defendants have changed their name from Castola Lubricants to M/s. R.K. Lubricants at the same address. The plaintiff has also made defendant No. 3- R.K. Lubricants as defendant No. 3 in the suit. It is the case of the plaintiff that the act of defendants in displaying their goods as of Castrol products, they are making a misrepresentation to the public and consumers taking advantage of the goodwill acquired by plaintiffs trade mark and trade name. The defendant No. 3 was served. Inspitet of service, no written statement has been filed. Defendants were proceeded ex-parte on 4th April, 1997.
5. On non-filing of the written statement, the use of the mark castrol in respect of the lubricants by defendants cannot be permitted as, same is illegal. Same would deceive and mislead the consumer and the members of the public. In support of the case, the plaintiff has filed his evidence on affidavit.
6. I have perused through the records and documents as well as evidence led by the plaintiffs. If the perpetual injunction is not granted, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and damage. I pass a decree for perpetual injunction against the defendants in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint. Suit is decreed accordingly.