Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 2(m)

Corporate names are included definition of the Trade Mark . In cases of division or separation when the mark or design is also divided or concurrent use is accepted, each party agrees to let the other side use the same mark or design.
Regarding use of the trademark AJANTA QUARTZ by the defendants, it prima facie appears that there is merit in the contention of the plaintiff that the mark AJANTA QUARTZ could be used by the defendants for wall clocks and timepieces and not in respect of other products. Quartz being a type of movement used in the clocks / time pieces. Use of words AJANTA QUARTZ by the defendants or from the house ofAjanta Quartz for products other than clocks I timepieces is not justified and correct. Defendants having transferred and assigned their rights in the mark and design in AJANTA to the plaintiff, except for wall clocks and time pieces cannot be permitted to call themselves as AJANTA GROUP. The Plaintiff has equal, if not a better right to call themselves as AJANTA GROUP. The plaintiff is rightly concerned as it loses right and claim to call themselves as AJANTA GROUP, inspite of the Assignment Deed. [Para 17]

The balance of convenience requires that each party should abide by the terms of the agreements. At the same time public or the customers should not be confused about the source and the manufacture. Balance of convenience also requires that neither party should be affected by any act or omission of the other side. Public interest demands that the two Groups should be identified as distinct and separate as they have presently nothing to share except history and a common father.Managements are different. The two Groups should be distinguished as separate in view of the red herring prospectus for initial public offer by Ajanta Manufacturing Limited in which they have described themselves as AJANTA GROUP. General public may not understand the difference in the two groups and read small lines of the prospectus. Irreparable injury may be caused to the plaintiff in case there is confusion in the minds of the general public about the source of the goods manufac¬tured by the defendants and the persons behind the public issue. In case of defective products or default, failure of the defendants is likely to misled and cause loss of goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and vice versa. Harm and loss of reputation and goodwill to either side can be visualized. [Para 18]

Balancing out all these factors and keeping in view that at this stage only an c interim order is being passed, the following directions are issued:- (i) The defendants will not use the words AJANTA QUARTZ or from the house of Ajanta Quartz on any of their packaging, advertisements, web sites except in respect of packaging or advertisements for timepieces and wall clocks, (ii) The defendants will not describe themselves as AJANTA GROUP. They are at liberty to call themselves OREVA/ ORPAT Group orJ.O. Patel Group. (Hi) The defendants can continue with ™ the corporate name AJANTA Manufacturing Ltd., Ajanta Transistor Clock Manu¬facturing Company and Ajanta Ltd. and use the corporate name on their packaging, labels, etc., if required and mandated by any statutory provision. Size and font will be the minimum, if any, prescribed by the statute. But whenever corporate or source name with the word AJANTA is used by the defendants it will be followed in equally prominent disclaimer J.O. [Para 19]