JUDGMENT : G. Rajasuria, J. 1. Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction, restraining the Respondent, by itself, its principal, servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through him from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using the trade mark YARDLEY or any other similar sounding expression or in any media and use the same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade .mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the Applicant trade mark YARDLEY or in relation to any product including Talcum powder, body spray or any other cosmetics and toiletry products and use the same or use the mark in invoices, letters heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the Applicant registered Trade mark Nos. 84018 & 372280 in Class 3 or in any manner infringe the Applicant's registered Trade Mark pending disposal of the above suit. O.A. No. 173 of 2010 Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction to restrain the Respondent, jointly and severally, by themselves, their Directors, servants, agents, representatives and all those acting in concert with them or claiming under or through them or otherwise however, from using the impugned name 'YARDLE' upon or in relation to any of their product including talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic and toiletry preparations and/or any other name/marks which may be identical to and/or deceptively similar to the Applicant corporate name, trade mark 'YARDLEY' and from in any manner, passing off or attempting to pass off or causing, enabling or assisting others to pass off their talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic preparations as and for the business and products of the Applicant, pending disposal of the above suit. These Original Application coming on this day before this Court for hearing the court made the following order: Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these applications would run thus; (a) The plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following relief's: "(a) to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its principal, servants, agents, distributors or anyone claiming through him from manufacturing, selling advertising and offering for sale using the trade mark YARDLEY or any other similar sounding expression or in any media and use the same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the plaintiffs' trade mark YARDLEY or in relation to any product including Talcum powder, body spray or any other cosmetics and toiletry products and use the same or use the mark in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the plaintiffs' registered Trade Mark Nos. 84012 and 372280 in Class 3 or in any manner infringe the plaintiff's registered Trade Mark. - to grant an order of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, jointly and severally, by themselves, their Directors, servants, agents, representatives and all those acting in concert with them or claiming under or through them or otherwise howsoever, from using the impugned name 'YARDLEY' upon or in relation to any of their product including talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic and toiletry preparations and/or any other name/marks which may be identical to and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff corporate name, trade mark 'YARDLEY' and from in any manner, passing off or attempting to pass off or causing, enabling or assisting others to pass off their talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic preparations as and for the business and products of the plaintiff. - to direct the defendant to surrender to the plaintiffs all the impugned products, packing material, cartons, advertisement materials and hoardings, letter-heads, visiting cards, office stationery and all other materials containing/bearing the name YARDLEY. - to direct the defendant to surrender to the plaintiffs all the impugned products, packing material, cartons, advertisement materials and hoardings, letter-heads, visiting cards, office stationery and all other materials containing/bearing the name YARDLEY. - to direct the defendant to render an account of profits made by them by the use of the plaintiff's trade mark on the goods referred and decree the suit for the profits found to have been made by the defendants, after the defendants have rendered accounts and - for costs. (extracted as such) (b) The same plaintiff filed these two applications seeking the following reliefs': O.A. No. 172 of 2010: - to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent, by itself, its principal, servants, agents, distributors or anyone claiming through him from manufacturing, selling advertising and offering for sale using the trade mark YARDLEY or any other similar sounding expression or in any media and use the same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the applicant trade mark YARDLEY or in relation to any product including Talcum powder, body spray or any other cosmetics and toiletry products and use the same or use the mark in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the applicant's registered Trade Mark Nos. 84012 and 372280 in Class 3 or in any manner infringe the applicant's registered Trade Mark, pending disposal of the suit. O.A. No. 173 of 2010: - to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent, jointly and severally, by themselves, their Directors, servants, agents, representatives and all those acting in concert with them or claiming under or through them or otherwise howsoever, from using the impugned name 'YARDLEY' upon or in relation to any of their product including talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic and toiletry preparations and/or any other name/marks which may be identical to and/or deceptively similar to the applicant corporate name, trade mark 'YARDLEY' and from in any manner, passing off or attempting to pass off or causing, enabling or assisting others to pass off their talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic preparations as and for the business and products of the applicant, pending disposal of the suit. (c) Common counter has been filed denying and refuting, gainsaying and challenging, the averments/allegations in the affidavits accompanying the applications. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The points for consideration are as to: (1) Whether an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using the trade mark YARDLEY or any other similar sounding expression or in any media and use the same in invoices, letter head and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the applicant's trade mark YARDLEY or in relation to any product including Talcum powder, body spray or any other cosmetics and toiletry products and 0use the same or use the mark in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the applicant's registered Trade Mark Nos. 84018 and 372280 in Class 3 could be granted? (2) Whether an order of interim injunction restraining the respondent from using the impugned name YARDLEY upon or in relation to any of their product including talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic and toiletry preparation or any other name/marks which may be identical to or deceptively similar to the applicant corporate name, trade mark YARDLEY and from in any manner passing off or attempting to pass off or causing, enabling or assisting others to pass off their talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic preparations could be granted? 4. The parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking in the suit. 5. Tour d'korizon of the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff would run thus: The plaintiff purchased the registered trademark, namely 'Yardley' with all its variants from Lornamead Group Ltd., which earlier got its trademark registered in India under the Trade Marks Act. Consequently after such purchase, so to say, after getting the assignment from the original owner of the Trademark, the plaintiff filed an application for getting the registration transferred in its name. While so, without any manner of right, the defendant is attempting to bring into India the products bearing the plaintiff's trademark, so as to sell them in India and thereby, trying to infringe the right of the plaintiff. Accordingly, he prays for injunction. 6. While so, without any manner of right, the defendant is attempting to bring into India the products bearing the plaintiff's trademark, so as to sell them in India and thereby, trying to infringe the right of the plaintiff. Accordingly, he prays for injunction. 6. Whereas, by way of torpedoing and pulverizing the arguments as put forth on the side of the plaintiff, the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant would advance his arguments; pithily and precisely, tersely and briefly, the some would run thus: (1) The goods tried to be brought into India are nothing but the original products manufactured by the assignor of the plaintiff's trade mark and in such a case, as per Section 30(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 no action would lie as against the defendant and by no stretch of imagination it could be stated that the defendant is attempting to infringe the trademark of the plaintiff. (2) In fact, the impugned goods have been imported from Singapore to India and now the goods are in Chennai Port. The trader in Singapore virtually obtained those goods only from U.K. manufactured by the very assignor of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant would pray for dismissal of both the applications. 7. The quintessence of the case before me would run thus: Indubitably and indisputably, the plaintiff is the assignee of the said trademark from the assignor, namely Lornamead Group Ltd. The plaintiff is having the right to manufacture in India the said product and sell it using the said trademark. While so, the defendant as pointed above, tries to import the talcum powder and body spray having the same trademark from Singapore. 8. The core question arises as to whether the plaintiff has got the right to prevent the defendant from importing those goods and trading in India. 9. While so, the defendant as pointed above, tries to import the talcum powder and body spray having the same trademark from Singapore. 8. The core question arises as to whether the plaintiff has got the right to prevent the defendant from importing those goods and trading in India. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff by inviting the attention of this Court to Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 would develop his argument to the effect that once the assignee, namely the plaintiff, has got the assignment of the trademark from the original registered owner, the former has got exclusive right to use it in India and if the defendant is permitted to import in violation of clause (c) of sub section (6) of Section 29 of the Act, then the very purpose of having got the assignment of the trademark from the original owner would be rendered negatory. The intention of law is to see that such assignees are protected and if no injunction is granted, then certainly the plaintiff would be prejudiced. 10. Whereas, the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant inviting the attention of this Court to Section 30(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 would implore and entreat that there is no embargo for importing genuine goods bearing the Trademark similar to that of the trademark of the plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot claim monopoly over that trademark and that too when the plaintiff himself obtained such trademark from the original owner, namely Lornamead Group Ltd. who still holds the trademark and manufactures goods in U.K. and exporting it to countries like Singapore, Malaysia etc. In fact, the assignor of the plaintiff alone manufactured those goods in England and sent it to Singapore and from Singapore the defendant is trying to import them into India and in such a case, squarely Section 30(2)(c) of the Act protects the defendant. 11. In support of his contention, he relies upon the following decisions: 1. Revlon Znc and others v. Cripps & Lee Ltd., and others reported in Fleet Street Reports (1980) 8C Appeals. 2. NG CHYE MONG Pte Ltd. v. Public Prosecutor - High Court of Singapore. 3. Winthrop Product Inc. v. Sun Ocean (N) SDN BHD, Malaysia- High Court of Malaysia. 4. Champgne Heidsieck KT CIS v. Buxton in the High Court of Justice-Chancery Division. 5. 2. NG CHYE MONG Pte Ltd. v. Public Prosecutor - High Court of Singapore. 3. Winthrop Product Inc. v. Sun Ocean (N) SDN BHD, Malaysia- High Court of Malaysia. 4. Champgne Heidsieck KT CIS v. Buxton in the High Court of Justice-Chancery Division. 5. Judgment in FAO No. 97 of 2006 by the Kerala High Court. 6. The Polo Bar Lauren Company L.P. V.Ziliani Holdings Pty. Ltd. Reported in 2008 Federal Court of Australia dated 05.02.2008. 7. Franz Xaver Hutmer v. New Yash Engineer, AIR 1997 Delhi P-75 (D.B.). 8. Write up on parallel importation in Trade Marks Cases by Brahmg Seghal and others, Canada. 9. Write up on parale1 importation in the field of Trade Marks by Ekatorina Shekhtman and Evgeniy Sesitsky. 10. Write up on parallel importation by Frederick M. Abbott (Swiss Agency for Development and Corporation). 12. He would submit that the main decision on this point is Rovlon Inc and othors v. Cripps & Lee Ltd., and others reported in Fleet Street Reports (1980) SC Appeals (in short Revlon case) and that judgment has been followed in subsequent judgments. The provision of law referred to in Revlon case is virtually similar to that of the provision as contained in Section 30(2)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and in such a case, the said decision could rightly be followed toy this Court. He would also persuade this court to follow the dictum as found enunciated in the unreported judgment rendered by the Kerala High Court in FAO No. 97 of 2006 dated 18.07.2006. 13. Whereas, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff would try to distinguish and differentiate those judgments cited on the side of the defendant by pointing out that the ratio decidendi involved in those decisions including the decision rendered by the Kerala High Court is to the effect that among the principal and subsidiary companies companies, one cannot try to get injunction as against the other, as they are all doing business jointly and a trader who obtains goods manufactured by one subsidiary company should not be prevented from taking these goods to one other country and trade there. 14. It is therefore, just and necessary to extract certain portions of Revlon case: "...................We all know that in many respects a group of companies are treated together for the purpose of general accounts, balance sheet, and profit and loss accounts. 14. It is therefore, just and necessary to extract certain portions of Revlon case: "...................We all know that in many respects a group of companies are treated together for the purpose of general accounts, balance sheet, and profit and loss accounts. They arc treated as one concern. Professor Gower in Modern Company Law, 3rtl ed. (1969) 216, says; "there is evidence of a general tendency to ignore the separate legal entities of various companies within a group, and to lock instead at the economic entity of the whole group." This is especially the case when a parent company owns all the shares of the subsidiaries. These subsidiaries are bound hand and foot to the parent company and must do just what the parent company says. ............................................................................. I conclude therefore that all products produced by any company in the group are connected in the course of trade with all other trading companies in the group. Thus REVLON FLEX products manufactured and marked with the trade mark REVLON FLEX by Revlon Inc. in the United States are connected in the course of trade with Revlon Suisse and Revlon Overseas. ............................................................................ TEMPLEMAN L.J.: This is an action by a multi national group of companies seeking to prevent products manufactured, named and sold of otherwise disposed of by a member of the group in one country from being re sold to the public in another country under the same name. .......................................................................................... In my judgment where a parent company chooses to manufacture and soll wholly or partly through a group of subsidiary companies in different parts of the world, products which bear the same trade mark and attract an international reputation, neither the parent nor any subsidiary can complain in the united Kingdom if those products are used, sold and re-sold under that trade mark. ........................................................................... If Revlon Inc. Themselves choose to manufacture and distribute products bearing the Revlon trade marks they cannot complain, and they cannot allow their subsidiary company to complain, of the use of the Revlon trade mark in connection with those products. The registered proprietor or registered user of a Revlon trade mark cannot set up as against Revlon Inc., or against any other member of the Revlon group, any individual claim to the benefit of the trade mark, which is only vested in the registered proprietor so long as Revlon Inc. The registered proprietor or registered user of a Revlon trade mark cannot set up as against Revlon Inc., or against any other member of the Revlon group, any individual claim to the benefit of the trade mark, which is only vested in the registered proprietor so long as Revlon Inc. think fit and is only exploited by the registered user for the ultimate benefit of Revlon Inc." 15. A mere poring over and perusal of those extracts would exemplify and demonstrate, display and convey that among the principal and subsidiary companies, one cannot try to claim monopoly right as against the other, whereas, the facts and circumstances involved in this case are different. As has been correctly highlighted by the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, contractual relationship is involved in this case. Pellucidly and palpably, it is clear that the assignor of the trademark, namely Lornamead Group Ltd. got that trademark registered in India under the Indian law and such trade marks was transferred in favour of the plaintiff, who has got exclusive right to use it. 16. At this juncture, I would like to extract here under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, "28. Rights conferred by registration: (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the registration of it trade mark shall, if valid, give to the registered proprietor of the trade mark the exclusive right to the use of the trade mark in relation to the goods or services in respect of which the trade mark is registered and to obtain relief in respect of infringement of the trade mark in the manner provided by this Act. (2) The exclusive right to the use of a trade mark given under sub section (1) shall be subject to any conditions and limitations to which the registration is subject. (2) The exclusive right to the use of a trade mark given under sub section (1) shall be subject to any conditions and limitations to which the registration is subject. (3) Where two or more persons are registered proprietors of trade marks, which are identical with or nearly resemble each other the exclusive right to the us of any of those trade marks shall not (except so far as their respective rights are subject to any conditions or limitations entered on the register) be deemed to have been acquired by any one of those persons as against any other of those persons merely by registration of the trade marks bat each of those persons has otherwise the same rights as against other persons (not being registered users using by way of permitted use) as he would have if he were the sole registered proprietor." A plain reading of Section 28 of the Act, would amply make the point clear that the plaintiff being the assignor of the trade mark is having the exclusive right of using it in India. If it is interpreted in any other manner that would amount to rendering Sub Section (1) of Section 28 nugatory. 17. By way of adding fuel to the fire, if the defendant is allowed to import the goods bearing the plaintiff's registered trade mark, then it would amount to violating Section 29(6)(c) of the Act, which is extracted here under for ready reference. "29 (6) For the purposes of this section, a person uses a registered mark if, in particular, he - (a) ......... (b) ......... (c) ......... imports or exports goods under the mark;" Harmonious reading and construing of a legislation is the bed rock of interpretation of statutes. Sections 28 and 29 of the Act should be read conjunctively and Section 30 of the Act has to be read subject to Sections 28 and 29 of it. If in isolation the said Section 30 is read, then it would amount to rendering the aforesaid Sections 28 and 29 nugatory or otiose. In fact, in my opinion, the cited Section 30 is to be treated as the proviso to Sections 28 and 29 of the Act. 18. I recollect and call up the following maxim -- Verba its sunt. intelligenda ut res magis valeat quam pereat: Words'; are to be so interpreted as to be effective rather than ineffective. In fact, in my opinion, the cited Section 30 is to be treated as the proviso to Sections 28 and 29 of the Act. 18. I recollect and call up the following maxim -- Verba its sunt. intelligenda ut res magis valeat quam pereat: Words'; are to be so interpreted as to be effective rather than ineffective. Accordingly, if viewed, it is clear that a statute has to be interpreted keeping in view the object. The very object of getting once trade mark registered is to have exclusivity and if that exclusivity itself is allowed to evaporate in the air by any dubious interpretation then that would render the statute itself meaningless. 19. The learned Senior Counsel for the defendant would submit that there should be healthy competition and the plaintiff cannot have monopoly in selling its goods. When the statute itself contemplates exclusivity in using the trade mark in India by a registered owner, then it would not lie in the mouth of the defendant to challenge or dispute the same. 20. A fortiori, 1 am of the considered view that the interpretation as put forth by the learned senior counsel for the plaintiff is acceptable and the defendant cannot import such goods into India. 21. However, there is no question of passing off action arising in this case, because, there is no simulation or emulation of a registered trade mark by another person, who want to deceptively use the same. But here, the very assignor himself, no doubt manufactured these goods and put the trade mark on the goods. The only objection that could be raised by the plaintiff is that such goods should not be imported into India so as to infringe the exclusive right of the plaintiff and as such the passing off action would not lie as against the defendant. But the plaintiff has got the right to press into service Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act and obtain injunction. 22. Accordingly, O. A. No. 172. of 2010 is allowed and O.A. No. 173 of 2010 is dismissed. 23. But the plaintiff has got the right to press into service Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act and obtain injunction. 22. Accordingly, O. A. No. 172. of 2010 is allowed and O.A. No. 173 of 2010 is dismissed. 23. The learned senior counsel for the defendant would make an extempore submission to the effect that in view of this court having taken the aforesaid view and injuncted the defendant from importing the goods, which are now lying in the port, they may be permitted to take back the same from the Chennai port to any other country. 24. Accordingly, permisaion is granted to the defendant to take back the imported goods from Chennai port to any other country as per law and subject to complying with relevant statutes and rules governing the same. O.A. No. 172 of 2010 Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction, restraining the Respondent, by itself, its principal, servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through him from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using the trade mark YARDLEY or any other similar sounding expression or in any media and use the same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the Applicant trade mark YARDLEY or in relation to any product including Talcum powder, body spray or any other cosmetics and toiletry products and use the same or use the mark in invoices, letters heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the Applicant registered Trade Mark Nos. 84018 & 372280 in Class 3 or in any manner infringe the Applicant's registered Trade Mark pending disposal of the above suit. 84018 & 372280 in Class 3 or in any manner infringe the Applicant's registered Trade Mark pending disposal of the above suit. O.A. No. 173 of 2010 Original Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order of interim injunction to restrain the Respondent, jointly and severally, by themselves, their Directors, servants, agents, representatives and all those acting in concert with them or claiming under or through them or otherwise however, from using the impugned name 'YARDLEY' upon or in relation to any of their product including talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic and toiletry preparations and/or any other name/marks which may be identical to and/or deceptively similar to the Applicant corporate name, trade mark 'YARDLEY' and from in any manner, passing off or attempting to pass off or causing, enabling or assisting others to pass off their talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic preparations as and for the business and products of the Applicant, pending disposal of the above suit. These Original Application coming on this day before this Court for hearing in the presence of Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, Senior Counsel for Mr. Gladys Daniel, Advocate for the Applicant in both Applications and Mr. R. Yashodvaradan, Senior Counsel for Mr. B. Sathish Sundar, Advocate for the defendant in both Applications and upon reading the counter filed by Aliyar and the order herein dated 18/04/2010 made in O.A. Nos. 172 and 173 of 2010, and the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant having submitted that there should be healthy competition and the plaintiff cannot have monopoly in selling its goods. B. Sathish Sundar, Advocate for the defendant in both Applications and upon reading the counter filed by Aliyar and the order herein dated 18/04/2010 made in O.A. Nos. 172 and 173 of 2010, and the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant having submitted that there should be healthy competition and the plaintiff cannot have monopoly in selling its goods. When the statue itself contemplates exclusivity in using the trade mark in India by a registered owner, then it would not lie in the mouth of the defendant to challenge or dispute the same and this Court of the considered view that the interpretation as put forth by the learend senior counsel for the plaintiff is acceptable and the defendant cannot import such goods into India and however, there is no question of passing off action arising in this case, because, there is no simulation or emulation of a registered trade mark by another person, who want to deceptively use the same, but here, the very assignor himself, no doubt manufactured those goods and put the trade mark on the goods and the only objection that could be raised by the plaintiff is that such goods should not be imported into India so as to infringe the exclusive right of the plaintiff and as such the passing off action would not lie as against the defendant, and but the plaintiff has got the right to press into service Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act and obtain injunction and the learned senior counsel for the defendant would make an extempore submission to the effect that in view of this court having taken the aforesaid view and injuncted the defendant from importing the goods, which are now lying in the port, they may be permitted to take back the same from the Chennai port to any other country, Accordingly, permission is granted to the defendant to take back the imported goods from Chennai port to any other country as per law and subject to complying with relevant statutes and rules governing the same, it is ordered as follows:- That Zeetel Electronics, the respondent/defendant O.A. No. 172 of 2010, by itself, its principal, servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through him, be and are hereby restrained by an order of interim injunction from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using the trade mark YARDLEY or any other similar sounding expression or in any media and use the same in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the Applicant trade mark YARDLEY or in relation to any product including Talcum powder, body spray or any other cosmetics and toiletry products and use the same or use the mark in invoices, letters heads and visiting cards or any other trade literature or by using any other trade mark which is in any way phonetically similar to the Applicant registered Trade mark Nos. 84018 & 372280 in Class 3 or in any manner infringe the Applicant's registered Trade Mark, till disposal of the above suit. 2. That the O.A. No. 173 of 2010 praying this Court to pass an order of interim injunction restraining Zeetel Electronics, the respondent/defendant in O.A. No. 173 of 2010, jointly and severally, by themselves, their Directors, servants, agents, representatives and all those acting in concert with them or claiming under or through them or otherwise however, from using the impugned name 'YARDLEY' upon or in relation to any of their product including talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic and toiletry preparations and/or any other name/marks which may be identical to and/or deceptively similar to the Applicant corporate name, trade mark 'YARDLEY' and from in any manner, passing off or attempting to pass off or causing, enabling or assisting others to pass off their talcum powder, body spray and other cosmetic preparations as and for the business and products of the Applicant, be and is hereby dismissed.