Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. This is a suit praying for the issuance of a permanent injunction restraining the infringement of the trade mark Maharaja of the plaintiff and for rendition of accounts. Summons/notice were issued to the defendant from time-to-time and after several attempts made for serving him by ordinary process, the defendant was finally served by publication and affixation at the notice board and on the last known address. As there was no appearance on behalf of defendant it was proceeded ex parte and the plaintiff was permitted to lead evidence by way of affidavits. This has been done.

2. The case set out in the plaint is that the plaintiff is carrying out its business in manufacturing of household articles, kitchenware, domestic appliances and electric and electrical goods bearing the trade mark Maharaja since 1978. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark Maharaja and has been using it in a particular characteristic style in a distinctive logo script which constitutes an original artistic work within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff is the owner of the copyright thereof and has the exclusive right to its use and reproduction. Over the years the trade mark Maharaja has acquired a tremendous reputation amongst the general public. The plaint further shows that the plaintiffs sales figures run into several crores of rupees; and that in this period expenses incurred in sales promotion and advertisements also run into crores of rupees. It is thereafter averred in the plaint that in March, 1992 the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had adopted the trade mark Royal Maharaja in respect of Mixer-grinder machine and that the trade mark Maharaja is shown prominently on the defendants products. Not only is the defendant fraudulently and dishonestly using the plaintiffs trade mark Maharaja in respect of Mixer-grinders but has with similar intent adopted the use of the logo script which is an exact reproduction of the plaintiffs mark Maharaja. This mala fide act of the defendant will inevitably cause confusion and deception in the minds of the public at large. The plaint further sets out that the plaintiff has already suffered damages to its reputation, goodwill and business and is likely to suffer further damages if the defendant is not restrained from using the trade mark Maharaja in respect of its products. It is then averred that the defendant has already made undue profits on accounts of its offending activities.

3. Pursuant to orders passed by this Court, evidence was led by means of the affidavit of Shri Harish Kumar, a partner of the plaintiff, in which he has traversed and affirmed the statements made in the plaint.

4. In the course of arguments the learned Counsel for the plaintiff reiterated the averments made in the plaint and proved through the affidavit of its partner. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff also relied on the decisions of this Court rendered in Kedar Nath v. Monga Perfumery & Flour Mills,AIR 1974 Delhi 12 and Glaxo Operations UK Ltd, Middlesex (England) and Others v.Samrat Pharmaceuticals, Kanpur,AIR 1984 Delhi 265.

5. In Kedar Naths case (supra) the defendants carton was found to be identical with the registered trade mark of the plaintiff, with the variation that the prefix Vijay in small type had been added. Having found that the prefix Vijay was not likely to catch the eye of an ordinary purchaser, who would, therefore, be easily deceived into thinking that he was buying the plaintiffs product, it was held that the impugned trade mark clearly infringed the plaintiffs registered trade mark. An injunction restraining the use by the defendant of the plaintiffs trade mark was upheld.

6. The Glaxo Operations case (supra) concerns the cartons of Glucose-D and Glucose-N and it was held that the two cartons resembled each other to such an extent that a customer was certain to be deceived. Therefore an injunction restraining the defendant from using its carton was issued.

7. The statement made in the plaint stand uncontroverted. The plaintiff has proved that it is the owner of the trade mark Maharaja. Several invoices have been filed showing the sale of these Mixer-grinders commencing from 1989 up to the filing of the suit. Bills pertaining to publicity carried out by the plaintiff have also been filed as well as advertisements inserted in various newspapers. These support and prove the correctness of the averments contained in the plaint. The advertisements also contain the logo adopted by the plaintiff and a comparison thereof with the logo adopted by the defendant conclusively shows that the latter is calculated to be so deceptively similar as to cause confusion in the minds of the public. The ratio set down in the two cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff would also propel me to hold that this action of the defendant is a deliberate one with the intention of causing confusion in the minds of the public so that they may be induced to purchase the defendants products thinking them to be those of the plaintiff.

8. In this analysis I decree the suit of the plaintiff and injunct and restrain the defendant, its servants, agents from manufacturing, selling and offering for sale, or advertising directly or indirectly, its Mixer-grinders for kitchen use under the trade mark Maharaja or any other identical or deceptively similar mark. The defendant, its servants, agents are also permanently injuncted and restrained from selling or advertising directly or indirectly its Mixer-grinders by use of the logo script identical/deceptively similar to that adopted by the plaintiff.

9. I feel that ends of justice would be adequately met if a decree for the recovery of Rs. 3,00,000 is passed in lieu of rendition of accounts. I further order the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff for the purposes of destruction and/or obliteration, all those goods, cartons, blocks, dies, labels, wrappers, price list, leaflets, literature and any other infringing material bearing the trade mark Maharaja/Royal Maharaja. The plaintiff shall also be entitled to costs of this suit which are quantified at Rs. 15,000.

10. The decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly.