Rolls-Royce Plc and Anr. v. R.R. Motors Pvt. Ltd.
1997 PTC (17) 60
• Plaintiff No. 1 was the proprietor of the mark Rolls Royce and the ‘RR’ Logo in a shield and was using the same for automobiles, engines, chassis etc. Plaintiff No. 2 was the Indian arm of Plaintiff No. 1.
• Defendant was using the mark ‘R.R.’ and ‘RR’ Logo in a shield for automobile repairing services.
• Plaintiffs filed a suit for infringement of trade mark and passing off against the Defendant.
• Defendant is using the trading style of the Plaintiffs in connection with its business of running a motor car repair workshop or garage under the trade name ‘R.R.’ which is registered in India in the name of the Plaintiffs.
• Defendant has also been using letters ‘RR’ in a shield device which is also the device of the Plaintiffs which a view to trading upon Plaintiffs’ reputation.
• Defendant is purposely trading on the name of the Plaintiffs to induce the general public to think that the Defendant is trading on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
• Defendant is not manufacturing and selling cars and is only repairing cars. Accordingly, the nature of activity of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant being entirely different, there is no cause of any confusion or deception being caused in the minds of the general public.
Authorities relied by Court:
The Hon’ble Court relied on Rolls-Royce Motors Ltd. and Another v. Dodd; 1981 F S R (517) and on Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft and Another v. Hybo Hindustan, to give protection to the Plaintiffs’ renowned mark for different services which were not provided by the Plaintiff.
“The contention raised by the defendant in its reply that the goods manufactured by the plaintiffs and the defendant are different and hence the apprehension of the plaintiffs that the use of the mark ‘R.R.’ or the same as a corporate name in respect of the goods manufactured by the defendant is not likely to cause confusion in the minds of the buyers is unfounded.”
“defendant not only adopted R.R. as its trading name, but is also using ‘R.R.’ in an interlinked fashion identical to the registration of the plaintiff in a manner calculated to deceive and intentionally lead to belief that the defendant Company is the plaintiffs Company.”
Defendants were restrained from using the trading name of the plaintiff ‘R.R.’ and/or the device of interlinked ‘R.R.’ in a shield or any other trade mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark.