JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV, Rule 1 O.S. Rules and Order VII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C., read with Section 27, 134 & 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, praying to pass a judgment and decree for:- (a)granting a permanent injunction, restraining the defendant by itself, their servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through them from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using the plaintiff's registered trade mark TEXMO/TEXMO as such or prefix or suffix in any Sprinkler parts, Accessories or in any other goods manufactured and sold by the defendant or its trading style or in any media and use the sme in invoices, letter heads and visiting cards or by using any other trade mark which is in any way visually, or phonetically similar to the plaintiffs' registered Trade Mark TEXMO/TEXMO or in any manner infringing the plaintiffs registered Trade Mark Nos.315049(SP-I), (SP-II) & 315050 (SPI), (SP-II) renumbered as 2702778, 2702779, 2702780 & 2702781 respectively; (b)granting a permenent injunction, restraining the defendant, by itself, their servants, agents, distributors, or anyone claiming through them from manufacturing, selling, advertising and offering for sale using the Trade Mark TEXMO/TEXMO as such or with prefix or suffix in any Sprinkler parts, Accessories or in any other goods manufacured and also by the defendant and its trading style 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 visually, or phonetically similar to the plaintiffs Trade Mark TEXMO/TEXMO or in any manner pass off the plaintiffs' goods; (c)directing the defendant to surrender to the plaintiffs all the goods, packing materials, cartons, advertisement materials and hoardings, letterheads, visiting cards, office stationery and all other materails containing/bearing the Trade Mark TEXMO/TEXMO or other deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' Trademark TEXMO; (d)directing the defendant to render an account of profits made by them by the use of the impugned trademark TEXMO on the goods sprinker pars Accessories and decree the suit for the profits found to have been made by the defendant, after the defendnat has rendered accounts; and (e)directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiffs the costs of the suit.) 1. Suit filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the registered trade mark of the plaintiffs TEXMO and restraining the defendant and its agents from using the Trade Mark TEXMO as such or with prefix or suffix in any sprinkler parts, accessories or in any other goods manufactured and sold by the defendant and to surrender goods, packing materials, cartons, advertisement materials and hoardings, letterheads, visiting cards, office stationery and all other materials containing/bearing the Trade Mark TEXMO/ or other deceptively similar mark to the plaintiffs. 2. The case of the plaintiffs as averred in the plaint is that, the plaintiffs are manufacturers of different types of electrical motors and pumps. Ramasamy Kumaravelu along with his brother late Ramachandran secured the registered trade mark TEXMO with effect from 21/05/1976 as joint proprietors in respect of electrical motor pumps (not for land vehicle) included in Class-7, including centrifugal pumps, mono-block pumps, domestic pumps, submersible pumps and reciprocating piston pumps, sugar cane crushers. 3. The details of the two Trademark registrations of the plaintiffs are:- (i) The expression “ TEXMO” impressed on an inverted triangle. (ii) “TEXMO” word per se. 4. The first plaintiff commenced its business on 1/04/1974 as a licensed user of the above two trade marks for the single phase pumps and motors manufactured by it. The second plaintiff commenced its business on 12/11/1982 as a licensed user of the above two Trade Marks with respect to the submersible motors and pumps, components and spares for the above products. 5. The license arrangement ceased with effect from 01/04/1990 on account of reconstitution of the firms and on the basis of an agreement dated 24/05/1990 between the parties, the registrar of Trade Marks passed the order on 20/04/1998 making the plaintiffs the registered proprietors of the Trade Mark TEXMO for the respective goods manufactured and marketed by the plaintiffs. The Trade Mark TEXMO was adapted to distinguish the said goods from that of others. The planitffs continuously, extensively and substantially use the said mark since 1974 and had acquired vast reputation and good will among the general public. The plaintiffs spent substantially for the advertisement and promotion of their product and have substantial turnover. The consumers have come to associate the said mark TEXMO as that of the plaintiffs. 6. The planitffs continuously, extensively and substantially use the said mark since 1974 and had acquired vast reputation and good will among the general public. The plaintiffs spent substantially for the advertisement and promotion of their product and have substantial turnover. The consumers have come to associate the said mark TEXMO as that of the plaintiffs. 6. In or around January 2019, to the shock of the plaintiffs, it was discovered that he defendant’s Trade Mark application for registration of their trademark TEXMO under application No.3190825 was advertised i in the Trade Mark journal No.1883 dated 07/01/2019. The Defendant is manufacturing, selling and distributing Sprinkler parts, Accessories under the impugned Trade Mark TEXMO. The plaintiffs have initiated appropriate Opposition proceedings in the Trade Mark Registry at Ahmedabad under No.979872 opposing the defendant’s Trade Mark application from grant of registration. 7. The defendant has adopted the identical Trademark “ TEXMO” in respect of similar goods solely for the purpose of exploiting the commercial goodwill of the plaintiffs. The defendants adoption of the plaintiffs trade make amounts to deception and infringement of the plaintiffs intellectual property rights. The defendant has malafide intention to pass off their goods as that originated from the plaintiffs firm. The plaintiffs goods and the defendant goods are cognate goods. It is a calculated attempt to infringe the Registered Trade Mark of the Plaintiffs and pass off the defendant’s goods as that of the plaintiffs. 8. The suit filed under the Commercial Courts Act. The plaintiffs filed affidavit of service in D.No.1730 of 2020. Taking note of the affidavit, the name and address of the defendant was printed in the cause list dated 29/07/2020. On that day, there was no representation for the defendant. The service of notice privately held sufficient and the defendant was set exparte on 29/07/2020. Thereafter, the Vice President of the plaintiffs company presented before the Additional Master No.II on 03/02/2021 and his evidence was recorded. Proof Affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ex.P-1 to Ex P-12 were marked. The matter again posted before the Court for argument. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs have obtained legal use certificates of the Trade Mark Nos.2702778 to 2702781 on 22.04.2014. The legal use certificates are Exs.P2 and P3. Proof Affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ex.P-1 to Ex P-12 were marked. The matter again posted before the Court for argument. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submitted that the plaintiffs have obtained legal use certificates of the Trade Mark Nos.2702778 to 2702781 on 22.04.2014. The legal use certificates are Exs.P2 and P3. The plaintiffs label TEXMO written between inverted triangle in red colour background is Ex.P3, which is alleged to have been infringed by the defendant by imitation. The comparison of Ex.P4 the plaintiffs lable and the defendant's trade mark application No.979872 for the name TEXMO exposed the imitation and proves the intention f the defendant that through imitation of the trademark of the plaintiffs to deceive the public. 10. On perusing the exhibits relied on by the plaintiffs, this Court finds that the plaintiffs holds the legal user certificates for the label TEXMO for the goods under Class 7. The very same name TEXMO sought to be registered by the defendant and published in the trademark journal No.1883 dated 07.01.2019 and the same is proved through Ex.P12. The plaintiffs have submitted notice of opposition Ex.P11 before the Registrar Trade Mark and the same is pending. The annual turn over of the 1st plaintiff for the financial year 2017-2018 is around Rs.108,53.77 lakhs and for the same period, the turn over of the 2nd plaintiff is around 1195,18.68 lakhs. This fact is proved through the certificate given by the Chartered Accountants and marked as Ex.P10. The use of the registered name TEXMO for the product of the defendant if permitted, it will certainly affect the turnover, reputation and goodwill of the plaintiffs. Being satisfied that the plaintiffs have proved their claim through Exs.P2 to P12, this Civil Suit is decreed as prayed for with costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.