Complaint for infringement of trade mark

 Complainant
                                                                                                     
versus…

Accused opposite party

The humble petition of the Complainant above-mentioned most respectfully
Sheweth:

1. RP Co. Ltd. is a manufacturer of and dealer in Computers for office purposes having its registered office in San Francisco, U.S.A. and a Branch at No. 1 D.N Road, Mumbai, Police Station Hare Street.

2. The complainant is the Registered Proprietor of the Trade Mark comop in respect of the computer for office purposes and its components being Registered Trade Mark No. 5 in Class I in respect of Computers for office purposes and its components. A certified copy of the registration of the said Trade Mark which is subsisting is annexed hereto marked 'A'.

3. The complainant made application for registration of the said Trade Mark at the Trade Mark Registry, 15/1 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Mumbai within the jurisdiction of this Learned Court. The said application was advertised in Trade Marks Journal No. 6 dated………..at page 10. A Xerox copy of the said advertisement as appearing in the said Journal in relation to the said Trade Mark is annexed hereto marked 'B'.

4. The said Trade Mark is valid and subsisting and will remain to be so for another three years.

5. The complainant is the Registered Proprietor of the said Trade Mark and has been using the same in India and abroad since last several years.

6. The complainant has spent huge sums of money for advertisement in respect of the said Trade Mark. Particulars of expenses are given in a Schedule annexed hereto marked 'C-

7. The sale of the computers under the said Trade Mark both in Indian market and in foreign markets for the last 10 years are given in a schedule annexed hereto marked 'D'.

8. The complainant has been spending huge sums of moneys in carrying out the sales promotion and publicity of its products under the said Trade Mark and built up high reputation about the goods, goodwill and utility of its products and the name has been associated in the minds of the purchasing public with the name of the complainant and no one else and the said Trade Mark and no other Trade Mark. Such reputation and goodwill are still enjoyed by the complainant in Mumbai and elsewhere in India and abroad.

9. The complainant has recently come to know that the accused opposite party is using an identical Trade Mark in respect of computers for office use with similar description to those of the complainant and selling the same in the market in Mumbai. The accused opposite party has also issued advertisements and leaflets and packing materials/cash
memos which will show that the name of the complainant has been falsely used by the accused opposite party. Copies of certain cash memos, advertisement materials and cartons and labels are annexed hereto collectively marked 'E'.

10. The accused opposite party made deceptive sales of and deceptive advertisements in Mumbai within the police station Hare Street and within the jurisdiction of this Learned Court. The office of the accused opposite party is also situated within the Police Station Hare Street, Mumbai and the advertisements of the complainant's Trade Mark also appeared in the newspapers appearing in places within the Police Station Hare Street, Mumbai within the jurisdiction of this Learned Court.

11. The complainant is the Registered Proprietor of the said Trade Mark and is using the same and the said Trade Mark has acquired high reputation as will be evident from the documents annexed hereto as also the fact of deceptive use of the identical mark in respect of the computers for office purposes and/or of similar description by the accused opposite party and "false trade description" within the meaning of s. 2(1)(f) of Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958. The accused opposite party has falsified the said Trade Mark of the complainant inasmuch as the accused has used the Trade Mark without the assent of the complainant, the Registered Proprietor of the Trade Mark, and has made and used that Trade Mark as deceptively similar Mark. The accused opposite party has thus committed offence under s. 57(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958.

12. The accused opposite party has falsely applied the complainant's Trade Mark to the accused's own goods on packages and cartons containing those goods, namely, computers for office purposes without the assent of the complainant being the Registered Proprietor of the said Trade Mark com of. The accused opposite party has thus committed offence under s. 77(2) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958.

13. The accused opposite party has packed, wrapped and put in cartons sub-standard products for sale to the unwary purchaser falsifying the complainant's said Trade Mark COMOF thereon and thus the accused has also committed an offence under s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

14. The accused opposite party has committed offences under the said Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 under ss. 78 and 79 thereof and also under the Indian Penal Code and is thus liable to be punished accordingly.

15. The complainant submits that cognizance should be taken of the offences committed by the accused opposite party and processes issued and the accused be tried and punished in accordance with the provisions of law.

16. The said offences have been committed, inter alia, at places within the Police Station Hare Street, Mumbai and the accused also carried on business and/or is situated at a place within the Police Station Hare Street, Mumbai within the jurisdiction of this Learned Court.

17. Your petitioner therefore prays Your Honour to issue process against the accused opposite party for offence committed under ss. 77, 78 and 79 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958 and under s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and to try and punish him in accordance with law.

Verification
I.........son of 2010 by occupation service working for gain at 1 D.N Road, Mumbai do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:
I am the Constituted Attorney and a principal officer of the RP Co. Ltd. at its Mumbai Office, I know and I have made myself acquainted with the facts and circumstances of this case and I am able to depose thereto. I am duly authorised and competent to make the present complaint and also sign the verification. 

I do make verify the complaint for and on behalf of RP Co. Ltd.
The statements in paragraphs Nos. 1 to 14 above are true to my knowledge based on information derived from record maintained by RP Co. Ltd. at its Mumbai Office and believed by me to be true and those in paragraph Nos. 15 and 16 hereof are my humble submissions to this Learned Court.

Solemnly affirmed by the said
Mr. ..................-at Court House 
at Bank shall Street, 
Mumbai on this 15th day 
of November 2010.

Before me Magistrate