In the case of Larsen and Toubro Limited v. Leuci
Communication and Ors, Larsen and Toubro, the
Plaintiff/Appellant brought a suit against the Defendant/Respondent
Company, Leuci Communications, for injunction, damages and delivery
of the infringing material.
The Plaintiff company is the owner of copyright in respect of
the trademark logo LT (in a circle). They have been carrying on
business in India as also in other countries for the last many
years and they claimed, that the words Larsen and Toubro have come
to be associated with them by traders and members of the public
The Plaintiff company became aware of the Defendant's use
when on 25th September, 2006, Mr Santanu Das, Sales
Engineer in the Jamshedpur office of the Plaintiff Company
purchased a charger from a shop in Bihar and found that though the
charger was made in China, the L&T logo (in a circle) was
printed on top of the carton and was moreover engraved on the
charger itself. Thus, it was alleged by the Plaintiff company:
that such use of their mark by the Defendant was likely to
cause confusion and give an impression to the public that the
Defendants were associated with them.
that the Defendants had adopted /copied the Plaintiff's
mark in respect of goods mentioned in Class 9 which were covered by
the Plaintiff's registered mark and had thus infringed the said
that the whole intention of the Defendant's abovementioned
use was to pass off their products as those of the Plaintiff's
and to represent to the public that they were in some way connected
to the Plaintiff company.
The suit was initially filed against 8 defendants. However, the
suit against Defendants 1 to 6 was decreed on the basis of a
compromise reached between them and the Plaintiff company. The
defendants no. 7 and 8 were proceeded ex parte.
The Plaintiff company filed an affidavit by way of ex parte
The Court, after a perusal of the Registration Certificate
issued by the Trade Registry to the Plaintiff company noted that
the Plaintiff company was the registered proprietor of the
trademark/logo LT (in a circle ), in respect of irons, tape
recorders, stereos, audio and video, audio and video systems and
cassettes, T.V. computers and fax machines, etc. telephones,
switches sockets, plugs, wire and cables, and so on and so forth.
The Court stated that the registration of trademark/logo LT (in a
circle) of the Plaintiff company was not only in respect of
telephones, but also their parts and accessories. Further, it is
difficult to dispute that mobile phones are not included in the
list of telephones, a charger of a mobile telephone is an essential
accessory. Hence, it would follow that the Plaintiff company held
copyright in the mark logo LT(in a circle) in respect of mobile
A perusal of the carton in which the charger was purchased by Mr
Santanu Das (an employee of the Plaintiff-company) revealed that
the mark/logo LT (in a circle) of the Plaintiff-company had simply
been re-produced on the carton. Since the Plaintiff company held
copyright in the mark in question in respect of telephone
accessories which would include a mobile phone charger, the
Defendants had no right to use the aforesaid mark/logo on the
carton in which the charger was being sold by them and having done
so had infringed the Plaintiff company's trademark.
The Court further noted that it could be inferred from the fact
that the Defendants chose not to explain their use of the
Plaintiff's mark that they wanted to encash on the reputation
and goodwill of the Plaintiff company.
Based on the above reasons, the Defendant Nos. 7 and 8 were
restrained from manufacturing, selling, exporting, distributing or
marketing any mobile charger using the registered mark/logo LT (in
a circle) of the Plaintiff company either on the product or on its
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion recently issued an office memorandum pursuant to receiving representations from various stakeholders for guidance with respect to the applicability of the provisions of Section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957.
An Invention Disclosure Form is the documentation of the invention. This is a means to document particulars of your invention and submitting it to the patent attorney who is filing your patent application.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).