JUDGMENT
M.K. Sharma, J.
(1) The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant seeking for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the copyright of the plaintiff, namely, ‘Hawkins’ and also for passing off the goods of the defendant as that of the plaintiff and also for rendition of accounts. The copyright of the plaintiff is registered and their registration No. A27389/80 dated 14.4.1980. It is stated that the said registration of the plaintiff is valid, subsisting and in force. A copy of the registration certificate has been placed on record. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been using the copyright with the ‘Hawkins’ label since the year 1974 in respect of pressure cookers of its manufacture and sale throughout India. In view of the quality of the products of the plaintiff, it has acquired a valuable reputation in the country. The plaintiff has also advertised its pressure cookers under ‘Hawkins’ label extensively throughout India. The total sale of the pressure cookers of the plaintiff for the period from March, 1987 to December, 1991 has been pleaded in the plaint.
(2) It has been pleaded by the plaintiff that the plaintiff came to know that the defendant has been using the impugned ‘cook line’ label on their pressure cookers which is colourable imitation and substantial reproduction of Hawkins’ label of the plaintiff and is confusingly and deceptively similar to that of the plaintiff’s ‘Hawkins’ label, and therefore, the present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff seeking for permanent injunction in respect of the aforesaid copyright of the plaintiff with ‘Hawkins’ label restraining the defendants from infringing the said copyright and also for passing off the get-up of the label in respect of pressure cooker of the plaintiff.
(3) Along with the suit, the plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC. By order dated 26.5.1993, this Court passed an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining the defendant from using in relation to pressure cooker the get-up of the label complained of in the plaint or any other label deceptively and/or confusingly similar to the label of the plaintiff and further restrained the defendant from using in relation to pressure cookers the get up of the label complained of and as set out in the plaint so as to constitute an infringement of the copyright registration of the plaintiff. The defendant was further restrained from using in relation to pressure cookers the label complained of or any other label deceptively and/or confusingly similar to that of the plaintiff.
(4) The summons and notices of the suit and the application were served on the defendant. However, neither any written statement nor any reply was filed by the defendant. Accordingly, by order dated 19.4.1994, this Court ordered that the suit would proceed ex parte as against the defendant. At the request of the plaintiff, evidence was allowed to be adduced by filing an affidavit, in pursuance of which three affidavits have been filed in this Court. Shri Anil Markundey, who is the constituted attorney of the plaintiff has stated in his affidavit that the plaintiff in 1974 introduced its pressure cooker with a distinctive, unique and artistic label ‘Hawkins’. He has further stated that the ‘Hawkins’ label of the plaintiff constitutes an original artistic work and the plaintiff is the owner of the copyright thereof. The copyright of the plaintiff is also stated to be registered and the registration certificate has been exhibited as Exb. ‘E’. He has further stated that the plaintiff has been continuously and extensively using the trade mark comprising ‘Hawkins’ label since 1974 in relation to pressure cookers and also advertised the said trade mark comprising ‘Hawkins’ label. The witness has proved various newspaper insertions, advertisement in magazines, etc. which are marked Exb. ‘F’ collectively. It is stated that in May, 1993, the plaintiff for the first time came to know that the defendant is using ‘Hawkins’ label in respect of pressure cookers. Although the plaintiff has no objection to the use of the word ‘Cook line’ by the defendant for their pressure cooker, but the plaintiff has objection in the defendant additionally adopting in relation to their pressure cookers the impugned label which is a colourable imitation and substantial reproduction of Hawkins’ label of the plaintiff. The witness has further stated that by their actions, the defendant has infringed the copyright of the plaintiff and has resorted to passing off by creating confusion and deception amongst the members of the purchasing public by using the label similar to the ‘Hawkins’ label of the plaintiff.
(5) Mr. J. N. Prabhakar, who is duly constituted attorney of the plaintiff company has also filed two affidavits reiterating the statements made by Mr. Markundey.
(6) There is no rebutting evidence against the evidence led by the plaintiff. From the evidence produced on record, it is found that the plaintiff has been using ‘Hawkins’ label from the year 1974 and was also registered in respect of the same in the year 1980 as is clear from Exb. ‘E’. The copyright of the label of the plaintiff is reflected from Annexure ‘E’, on comparison of which with the label used by the defendant in their pressure cooker, which is also on record as Exb. ‘H’, it is found that the defendant has imitated and substantially reproduced the ‘Hawkins’ label of the plaintiff which is registered. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff has been able to establish that the defendant has infringed the ‘Hawkins’ label of the plaintiff and has also resorted to passing off their goods deceptively as the goods of the plaintiff. The suit accordingly stands decreed to the extent of the relief in paragraph (a), (b) and (e) of paragraph 32 of the plaint with cost.
(7) In view of the aforesaid decree passed in favour of the plaintiff, the Counsel for the plaintiff fairly submits that the plaintiff does not wish to press for the remaining relief sought for in the plaint. As regards the said relief, the suit stands dismissed.