Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2269 (DEL)

EXXON MOBILE CORPORATION v. ROMANIO GEORGE

2015-11-20

NAJMI WAZIRI

body2015
JUDGMENT : NAJMI WAZIRI, J. 1. This suit seeks a permanent injunction against the infringement of the plaintiffs? copyright in the trademark ‘EXXON’, in particular for restraining the defendant from using the trademark ‘EXXON’ as a part of the trade name “EXXON Power Tech” prominently for selling branded inverters, UPSs and Batteries and rendition of accounts by the defendant. 2. Plaintiff No.1 is a company incorporated under the laws of the State of New Jersey, United States of America based at 5959 Las Colinas Boulevard, Irving, Texas 75039-2298, U.S.A. Plaintiff No. 2 is an Indian subsidiary of the first plaintiff and is a licensee/permitted user of the plaintiff No.1’s trademark in India. Ms. Veena P. is its constituted Attorney. She was duly authorized by a Power of Attorney to sign and verify the plaint on behalf of the second plaintiff. The plaint has been signed by her and is supported by the affidavit of the said Attorney of the plaintiff No.2. 3. It is stated that the plaintiffs’ trademark ‘EXXON’ is registered in 160 countries in the world including India. In India alone, there are 39 registrations for the mark ‘EXXON’ in favour of plaintiff No.1 for wide varieties of goods falling in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30 and 31 of the 4th Schedule to the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The earliest registration for the trademark ‘EXXON’ in India is dated October 28, 1967. The plaintiffs claim to be a multinational oil and gas company engaged in and conducting research in oil and gas exploration in six continents and are world renowned leaders in chemical, petroleum and related petroleum products. 4. It is plaintiffs’ case that annual sales of ‘EXXON’ branded products averaged approximately 167,805 tons each year from 2004-2011 and they have spent an average of over USD 19,000,000 in advertising and promotion of ‘EXXON’ branded fuels and related products and services during 2002-2011. Plaintiff No. 1 also owns and maintains websites by the names of www.exxonmobil.com and www.exxon.com since January, 1991. 5. It is further stated that the defendant is an authorized dealer of inverters and batteries for brands like Microtek, Luminous, Su-Kam, Exide, Amaron etc. and is carrying on its business under the name and style of EXXON Power Tech. Plaintiff No. 1 also owns and maintains websites by the names of www.exxonmobil.com and www.exxon.com since January, 1991. 5. It is further stated that the defendant is an authorized dealer of inverters and batteries for brands like Microtek, Luminous, Su-Kam, Exide, Amaron etc. and is carrying on its business under the name and style of EXXON Power Tech. The defendant?s use of the trademark EXXON as a part of its trade name is an infringement of the plaintiffs? well known trademark and trading style EXXON. The use of the trademark EXXON by the defendant is bound to create an impression of association with the plaintiffs in the minds of the consumers. The plaintiffs approached the defendant through its attorney vide letter dated 09.01.2014 followed by a reminder dated 30.01.2014 to inter-alia give up the use of the plaintiffs? trademark and/or trading style EXXON but to no avail. 6. The plaintiffs have led their ex parte evidence though their authorized Attorney Ms. Veena P., who has deposed in terms of the plaint and provided a copy of the plaintiffs’ annual report for the year 2012 as Ex.PW1/50, copies of various articles, newspaper coverage and photographs evidencing the plaintiffs’ popularity as Ex.PW1/51 (colly), copies of printouts of news articles published on www.indiatoday.in along with various other advertisements and press clippings as Ex.PW1/53 (colly), a copy of documents showing the reputation of the plaintiffs’ mark ‘EXXON’ as Ex.PW1/54, a copy of FORTUNE Magazine’s ranking list of America’s largest companies from the year 1996-2012 as Ex.PW1/55, an original visiting card of the defendant as Ex.PW1/56, the office copy of the cease and desist letter dated 09.01.2014 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant along with its courier receipt as Ex. PW1/57 and the office copy of the reminder letter dated 30.01.2014 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant along with its courier receipt as Ex.PW1/58 (Colly). 7. On 04.04.2014, an ex parte ad interim injunction was passed against the defendant from using the trademark ‘EXXON’ as part of the trading style or any other trademark or name or domain name identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff No.1’s registered trade mark ‘EXXON’. On 03.11.2014, the defendant was proceeded ex parte. 8. It is the plaintiffs? case that in earlier proceedings against three parties, this Court has protected the breach of their trademark EXXON i.e. in CS(OS) 2029/2013 & CS(OS) 758/2014. 9. On 03.11.2014, the defendant was proceeded ex parte. 8. It is the plaintiffs? case that in earlier proceedings against three parties, this Court has protected the breach of their trademark EXXON i.e. in CS(OS) 2029/2013 & CS(OS) 758/2014. 9. Since the defendant is ex parte, the plaintiffs? claims remain unrebutted. There is no reason why the relief sought in the plaint should not be granted. 10. This Court is of the view that for the sake of protection of their trade mark EXXON the plaintiffs have made out a case for grant of injunction against infringement of the trade mark by the defendant. The plaintiffs are entitled to the protection of their trademark and for the suit to be decreed in their favour. In the circumstances, the suit is decreed in terms of prayer (A) of the plaint alongwith costs of Rs.50,000/-. Let the decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. 11. The suit is disposed off in the above terms.