Ksb Aktiengesellschaft & Anr v. Ksb Communications and Engineers Pvtl Td

Order Incorporation / Forum Defendant was dealing in Goods /Services 1"" Suit No. KSB Vide order 26 February Incorporated in 1906/04 Aktiengeselisc 2009 the defendants were 1990 before haft & Am-. directed to change their Bombay High Vs. name. Fire Fighting Court KSB Fire System, Fire Protection The name has been .Hydrant System, Services changed to Bnshah Fire Automatic Private Protection Services Sprinlder System, Limited Private Limited Fire Alarm/Detection System Suit No. 2930" KSB Vide order dated Incorporated in of 2007 Aktiengeselisc February, 2008 the Court 1982 before haft & Anr. restrained KSB Real Bombay High Vs. Estate a]jd Finance Real estate and Court KSB Real Private Limited ftom finance Instate and using the trade Finance name/trade mark KSB Private {'age 20 of34 Limited CS(OS)' NOr KSB of 2007 Aktiengesellsc before Delhi haft & Anr. High Court Vs. KSB Exports Limited r8"92 of 200T KSB before Delhi Aktiengesells High Court chaft & Anr. Vs. KSB Developers Private Limited RD ' /TA/Sec KSB 22/28/07/1097 Aktiengesellsc Regional haft & Anr. Director, Vs. Ministry of KSB Eastern Corporate Engineering Affairs, Services Mumbai Private Limited CS NO. 1136 KSB of 2009 Aktiengesellsc before haft & Anr. Chennai High Vs. Court KSB Constructions Private Limited. Suit No. KSB of 2010 Aktiengesellsc District .Tudge haft & Anr. at Alipore, Vs. Kolkata. KSB Holdings Private CS(OS) 1S66/20I0 The name has been changed to Gold Dust Real Estate Private Limited Vide order dated 3.07.07 &

19.11.07 this Honble Court restrained KSB Exports Limited from exporting goods under the trade mark/trade name KSB Authourised representative of KSB Developers Private Limited undertook before this Hon'ble Court on

5.11.08 to change the name Vide order dated 9.10.09 the Court restrained KSB Eastern Engineering Industries Private Limited from using , the trade marlc/trade name KSB Vide order dated

19.1.2010 the Court restrained KSB Constructions Private Limited from from using the trade name /trade mark KSB as part of Coiporate name. Hon'ble Kolkata High Court vide order dated

18.03.2009, restrained KSB Holdings Private Limited from using the trade marlc/trade name Incorporated 2005 m Manufacturing and selling tools for making watch, goldsmith/ jewellery, spices and insense sticks etc. Incorporated 2006 Constructing developing properties Incorporated 1985 Engineering Services Incorporated 2009 Construction business Incorporated 1992 Investment m & m m m J'(ige2lof34 Limited. KSB. CS(OS) No. KSB Hon'ble Delhi High Incorporated in 1250/08 Aktiengesellsc Court vide final order 1995 before haft & Anr. and judgemnt dated Hon'ble Delhi Vs.

4.6.2010, permanently Real Estate High Court KSB Global Limited. restrained KSB Global Limited from using the trade marlc/trade name KSB. CS(OS) No. KSB Hon'ble Delhi High Incorporated in 1287/2010 Aktiengesellsc Court vide order dated 1987 before haft & Anr.

2.7.2010 passed an ex Hon'ble Delhi Vs. parte ad interim Real Estate High Court - KSB Associates Private Limited. injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs restraining the defendant from using the trade mark KSB as part of the corporate name. lO"' CS(OS) No. KSB Hon'ble Delhi High Incorporated in 1329/2010 Aktiengesellsc Court vide order dated 1996 before haft & Anr.

6.7.2010 passed an ex Hon'ble Delhi Vs. parte ad interim Capital Services High Court KSB Capital Services Limited. injunction in favour of the Plaintiffs restraining the defendant from using the trade mark KSB as part of the corporate name. /Stock Brockers The final order and judgmentdated 4.6.2010passedby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CS(OS)No. 1250/08,the ex parte ad interiminjunction order dated 2.7.2010 in favour of the plaintiffs by Delhi High Court in Suit No. 1287 of 2010, the ex parte ad interim injunction order dated

6.7.2010 in favour of the plaintiffs by Delhi High Court in Suit No. 1329 ol 2010, the Order dated 11.2.2008of Bombay High Court in Suit No. 2930 of 2007, the Order Dated 3.7.2007 and 19.11.2009 by Delhi High Court in Suit No. 933/07, the final order Dated 5.11.08 by Delhi High Court in Suit No. 1892/08, the order dated 13.04.06 in Suit No. 3988/03 before Bombay High Court, the order dated 13 Sep, 2006 by Bombay Paga 22 of34

7.

¶26High Court in Suit no. 442/06, the order dated 26 February 2009 by Bombay IligiiCourtin Suit no. 1906/04,the orderdated 9"^ Oct, 2009 by BombayHigh Courtin Suitno. 1504/07,the orderdated 19"^ Jan, 2010 by Madras High Court in Suit no. 1136/09, the order dated 18.3.2010 by Calcutta High Court F.M.A.T No. 398 of 2010, the order dated

12.11.2007 in matter no. RD /TA/Sec 22/28/07/10978 Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Mumbai are already on record from page No. 1-60, filed vide List of Document dated 20.07.2010 and the same are collectively exhibited as Ex.PWl/ 32. This witness has also deposed that pursuant to the Suits/Notices/legal actions initiated by the plaintiffs, various companies have changed their corporate names by deleting the words "KSB " from their corporate names. LEGAL NOTICES LEADING TO CHANGE OF NAMES ACTION _ INITIATED Legal Notice dated

9.6.2008 PREVIOUS NAME CHANGED NAME KSB Builders Private Limited, Kolkata kSB Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata KSB .Complex Private Limited, Kolkata KSB Estate Private Limited, Kolkata KSB Heights Private Limited, Kolkata BKS Developers Private Limited Legal Notice dated

9.6.2008 Legal Notice dated

9.6.2008, Legal Notice dated

9.6.2008 Legal Notice dated

9.6.2008 Legal Noticc dated

9.6.2008 Binayak Real Estate Private Limited BKS Complex Private Limited BKS Estate Private Limited BKS Heights Private Limited KSB Constructions Private Limited, Kolkata BKS Hirise Private Limited Legal Noticc dated

9.6.2008 KSB Homes Private Limited, Kolkata BKS Homes Private I/imited Page 23 ofJ'f

¶27'J'his witness has also deposed that the use of the trade mark/ name KSB by the defendant, whieh is identical to the trade marlc/name/corporate name KSB of the plaintiffs, constitutes infringement of plaintiffs' registered trade-marks. KSB and KSB logo are the trade-marks possessingworldwide and global reputation for a variety of goods and business. KSB and its logo as trade-marks, enjoy highest degree of inherent distinctiveness being a coined mark. It is a trade-mark used in several countries; and is a registered trade mark in India since the year 1958. The goods bearing the trade-mark KSB have been selling in India since 1945 through import, and in open retail market through plaintiff No.2 sole selling agent since the year 1960. The sales o! plaintiff No.2 from its operationsunderthe trademarkKSB and its logo in India for the fmancialyear ended March 2005 was Rs. 359.5 Crores and as of March 2009 was above Rs. 592 crores. The advertisement and sales promotions expenses incurred by the plaintiffNo.2 in respect of trade mark/ name KSB and its logo in India for the fmancial year ended March, 2005 was Rs 2.3 Crores and as of March 2009 was above Rs. 3.4 Crores. It has also been deposed that one of the group companies of the plaintiff No.l, namely KSB Engineering Services NV is involved in engineering, installation, repair, maintenance of pumps, valves, motors, planning etc.; and perusal of Memorandum of Association of the defendant as obtained by the plaintiffs from the website maintained by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA 21) shows that the defendant object to be perused by the defendant Company includes " (C5)(iv).... sanitary fittings and sanitary pipes "(C 19) To carry on business of mechanical engineers water works-engineers and deal in machinery implements, rolling stock and hardware of all kinds which overlaps with business of the plaintiffs for which the plaintiffs already hold trade mark registration i>ag,24of34 no. 726000, 1291428, 1291429, 1291432 and 1291433 as enlisted above. Therefore, any unauthorised use of the trade-mark KSB by any unauthorised trader amounts to violation of plaintiffs' statutory right and infringement of plaintiffs' registered.trade-marksunder Section 29(2) of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 (the Act).

¶28Mr.Vijay Prabhakar Shidhaye, has also deposed that the plaintiffs' trade mark KSB and its logo, are 'well-lcnown' trade-marks and enjoy highest and widest degree of statutory protection. It is also deposed that ---f considering the KSB is a "well known" trade-mark, the impugned use amounts to infringement of registered trade-mark, irrespective of similarity or otherwise of the competing services that the plaintiffs' trade marks are registered for; and any unauthorised use thereof or any other deceptivelysimilarmark byany unauthorisedtraderwould inevitablylead to dilution and erosion of the distinctiveness of the registered trade mark KSB and would be detrimental to highest degree of goodwill and reputation that vests therein, amounting to violation of plaintiffe' statutory right and infringement of plaintiffs' registered trade-marks under Section 29(4) of the Act. By using the corporate name containing the letters KSB •on their letter heads, printed matters, goods and/or services, the defendant has infringed and are continuing to infringe the plaintiffs' above referred registered trade marks under Section 29 (5) of the Act. . 29. It is also deposed that the defendant has adopted the trade mark KSB with dishonest and fraudulent intent to derive and misappropriatethe undue benefit of goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the trade mark and trade name KSB pertaining to the plaintiffs business. Considering the size of KSB group and the extent of business conducted by them globally, plaintiffs could be capable of venturing into any business, goods or ' Pag^25of34 services. The use of the word "Engineers" for the alleged cellphone installation business carried on by the defendant under the trade name KSB and/ or Trade mark KSB, therefore, would inevitably be associated by people with the plaintiffs. It is also deposed that by considering that the plaintiffs have not granted any license or approval to the defendant qua the business or services provided by the defendant, the use of the trade mark KSB in respect of the goods sold and/or services offered by the defendant is bound to damage and be detrimental to the goodwill and reputation that vests in the trade mark KSB of the plaintiffs, 'fhe use of the trade mark KSB by the defendants, therefore, constitutes acts of infringement.

¶30As per this witness, the plaintiffs' trade mark and trade name KSB is already perceived as a well known trade mark in India and globally; and besides all the above, there is great likelihood that the actual or potential customers will be further induced to associate the business and : -

i) believe that the defendant's business is line extension and the plaintiffs ha:ve recently started a business of providing capital services either themselves or-in collaboration with the defendant or that they have licensed the trademark KSB to the defendant for the above mentioned activities (confusion qua source);

ii) believethat the defendant'sactivitieshad been endorsedby the plaintiffsand the sei-vicesthat are soughtto be offeredby the defendanthave the same level of quality and reliability that is synonymous with the goods and services of the plaintiffs' companies(confusionqua quality); 26 of34

iii) believe that the defendant has some connection with the plaintiffs, in terms of direct nexus or affiliation or group company with the plaintiffs companies (confusion qua association). Thus the defendant' use of the impugned marlc/name is aimed at encashing on and misappropriating the goodwill and reputation acquired by the plaintiffs, which would consequently and irreparably be damaged by tarnishment; and such use by the defendant amounts to an act of passing off their business as and for that of the plaintiffs. Defendant is using the impugned trade mark KSB for capital investment business inviting financial investments from public by misrepresenting themselves as worldwide reputed entity which the plaintiffs are;

(iv) The confxisionor deceptionwould also accrued in the minds of members of public as the services of the defendant may be associated with the plaintiffs as financial services rendered by the plaintiffe inviting financial investment. In fact, plaintiffs already have two group companies which are in the business of financial investments internationally by the name of KSB Finance, Netherlands B.V and KSB Finaza S.A.. These two group companies of the plaintiffs are primarily focused at generating funds and finance for overall growth and investment in other group companies. The adoption of the trade mark and trade name KSB by the defendant is totally fraudulentand malafide since the same is without any justification. It is also deposed that perusal of Memorandum of Association of the defendant as obtained by the plaintiffe P(,gc27oj34 from the website maintained by the Ministry of Coiporate Affairs (MCA 21) shows that the defendant was promoted by seven individuals by the name Mr. Alok Kumar Sharma, Ms. Geetanjali Sharma, Mr.- Sanjiv Kumar, Ms. Jyoti Singhal, Mr. Budh Prakash, Ms. Kusum Lata & Aradhana Agarwal. The adoption of the trade name KSB by the defendant is to attract fmancial investment from members of the public by misrepresenting and creating confusion about their ; association with global business of plaintiffs; and the I Defendant is therefore liable to be injuncted not only to protect and prevent injury to plaintiffs' goodwill and reputation in the trade mark KSB but even to prevent injury to members of public arising from confusion and deception practices by the defendant.

¶31Mr.Vijay Prabhakar Shidhaye, has also deposed that the use of the impugned trade mark by the defendant also constitutes acts of unfair competition in as much as the defendant is using plaintiffs' trade ^ mark/name KSB for alleged engineeringand installationbusiness not offered by the plaintiffs. The conduct of the defendant is neither bonafide nor that of an innocent adoption as they are bound to be aware of the overwhelming reputation of the plaintiffs trade marlc/name KSB and its logo in the pump, valve, engineeringindustry. The law does not permit protectionto a person who deliberatelysets out to take benefit/advantage of somebody else's reputationespeciallywhen such reputationextends worldwide.

¶32Ihis witness has also deposed that the blatant and unrestricted use of identical trademark by defendant in relation to their goods and/or the CS(()S) 1566/2010 Page28 of34 services offered, will inevitably lead to dilution and erosion of the uniqueness and exclusivity associated with the plaintiffs trade marlc/name KSB by reducing their capacity to identify and distinguish the goods and services of the plaintiffs as originating from a particular source, regardless of the presence or absence of likelihood of confusion, mistake or deception. In other words, the unauthorized and indiscriminate use by the defendant of the impugned trademark upon illegal goods and services is bound to result in the whittling away of the selling power, distinctive quality and value of the established trade mark of the plaintiffs. In the event that the defendant's activities are not curbed, they will succeed in prompting others to imitate the Plaintiffs well-loiown trade mark thereby leading to further dilution..

¶33This witness has also deposed that the defendant is liable to be injuncted urgently so as to protect the public interest, as the consumers ought to be protected against deception and from being subjected to goods that have been manufactured and dispensed without any supervision or any quality control by the plaintiffs. In addition to the injury that the use of the trade mark KSB by the defendant is causing to the consumers at large, it is also injuring the goodwill, reputation and the business of the plaintiffs. The profits earned by the defendant is unlawful and liable to be restored to the plaintiffs; and the defendantis liable to render accounts of profits, as the plaintiff have no access to the accounts of the defendant and is neither in position to ascertain what profits the defendant has made.

¶34I have heai'd counsel for the plaintiffand perused the plaint and the accompanyingdocuments and the evidence led by the plaintiff The evidence of the plaintiff has gone um^ebutted. 29 of34 I

¶35Plaintiff no.l has proved the registration of the trade mark KSB, KSB Logo and KSB & Logo in various countries and in various classes, collectivelyexhibitedas Ex.PW-1/12.Plaintiff no.l has also been able to establish that they have obtained registration of the trade mark in respect of goods and servicesfalling in Classes 6, 7, 9, 11, 16, 37, 41 and 42 in India. I'he certificates for use and legal proceedings have been collectively exhibited as Bx.PW-1/13.Plaintiff no.2 has also applied to the Registrar of Trade Marks for registrationof their eight trade -marks and also registration of domain name www.ksb.com. The sale figures placed on record and the certificateissued by plaintiffs no.l auditors pertainingto the statementof sales figures, statementof advertisements and publicity expenses have been collectivelymarked as Hx.PW-1/19. The sale figuresof plaintilfno.2 would establishthe extensivesalesunder the trade mark. Evidence on record would also show that the turnover of plaintiffno.2 is more than Rs.596.0crores in the year 2008. A certificate issued by plaintiffs no.2 auditors, pertaining to statement of sales and publicityexpenses of plaintiffno.2, has been exhibited as PW-1/12.

¶36The above factors would show that the trade mark of the plaintiffs' KSB falls, in the category of well known trade marks as defined under Section 2(z) (g) of the Trade Marks Act and, thus, the same requires protection of the widest extent beyond limitation or constriction of category of goods and services. By the extensive use of the trade mark KSB by the plaintiffs, the trade mark has become distinctive and exclusively associated with the plaintiffs by the members of trade and public. At the time, when the defendant came into existence by adoption of the name KSB as part of its coiporate name plaintiff was already well-established and it seems that defendant had designed to use the name to mislead the members of the public into believing that there is business J-Pane30ofi4 -4 r ( association between tlie plaintiffs and the defendant. Tlie use of the trade mark KSB by the defendant amounts to infringement of the plaintiffs' registered trade marks. By using the name KSB along with engineers as part of the defendant's corporate name the defendant is creating confusion amongst the traders and members of the public into believing that the defendant is in some way connected with the plaintiffs. The act of the defendant is likely to infringe some of the plaintiffs' registered trade mark and it seems that the defendant is trying to pass off their goods and or their sei-vices as that of the plaintiffs. Defendants cannot be permitted to ride over the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs, which is well-established. The act of the defendant would result in dilution through tarnishmcnt and bluning.

¶37in view of the above, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendant from using the infringing mark/ label in terms of prayers (a) to (c) of paragraph 30 of the plaint.

¶38Counsel for the plaintiff also prays for damages for loss of reputation and business as also the cost of the present proceedings. It is trite to say that the defendant has deliberately stayed away' from the present proceedings with the result that an enquiry into the accounts of the defendant for determination of damages cannot take place. However, the infringement of the trademark of the plaintiff is not in dispute. The attention of this Court has been drawn to a number of judgments in this behalf where dealing with similar situations, damages have been awarded.

¶39In the case of "M/v L.T. Overseas Ltd. v. M/s Guruji Trading Co. and Anr. [CS (OS) No. 2711/1999] decided on 07.09.2005 this court had granted Rs.3 lalchs damages to the plaintiff. In the case of Relaxo Rubber Limited and Anr. v. Selection Footwear and Anr., 1999 PTC 578, the defendant did not file the written statement after taking time for the same and a decree was passed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Against the claim of tentative damages of Rs.5 lakhs, Rs.3 laldis was awarded as damages. In another case of Hindustan Machines v. Royal Electrical Applies, 1999 PTC (19) 685, a sum of Rs.3 I'aldis was awarded.

¶40In the case of Time Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava and Anr., 2005

(30) PTC 3 (Del) where apart fi-om compensatory damages of Rs.5 lakhs, ^ punitivedamageshave also beenawarded.It wouldbe usefulto reproduce paras 7 and 8 of the said judgment, which are as under "7. Coming to the claim of Rs.5 lacs as punitive and exemplary damages for the flagrant infringement of the plaintiffs trade mark, this Court is of the considered view that a distinction has to be drawn between compensatory damages and punitive damages. The award of compensatory damages to a plaintiff is aimed at compensating him for the loss suffered by him whereas punitive damages are aimed at deterring a wrong doer and the like minded from indulging in such unlawful activities. Whenever an action has criminal propensity also the punitive damages are clearly called for so that the tendency to violate the laws and infringe the rights of others with a view to make money is curbed. The punitive damages are founded on the philosophy of corrective justicc and as such, in appropriate cases these must be awarded to give a signal to the wrong doers that law docs not take a breach merely as a matter between rival parties but feels concerned about those also who are not party to the lis but suffer on account of the breach. In the case in hand itself, it is not only the plaintiff, who has suffered on account of the infringement of its trade mark and Magazine design but a large number of readers of the defendants' Magazine 'TIME ASIA SANSKARAN' also have suffered by purchasing the defendants' Magazines under an impression that the same are from the reputedpublishinghouse of the plaintiff company. Page32 of34 r /

¶8This Court has no hesitation in saying that the time has come when the Courts dealing actions for infringement of trade marks, copy rights, patents, etc. should not only grant compensatory damages but award punitive damages also with a view to discourage and dishearten law breakers who indulge in violations with impunity out of lust for money so that they realize that in ease they are caught, they would be liable not only to reimburse the aggrieved party but would be liable to pay punitive damages also, which may spell fmancial disaster for them. In Mathias v. Accor Economi Lodsin2, Inc.. 347 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2003) the factors underlying the grant of punitive damages were discussed and it was observed that one function of punitive damages is to relieve the pressure on an overloaded system of criminal justice by providing a civil alternative to criminal prosecution of minor crimes. It was further observed that the award of punitive damages serves the additional puipose of limiting the defendant's ability to profit from its fraud by escaping detection and prosecution. If a tortfeasor is caught only half the time he commits torts, then when he is caught he should be punished twice as heavily in order to make up for the reason that it is very difficult for a plaintiff to give proof of actual damages suffered by him as the defendants who indulge in such activities never maintain proper accounts of their transactions who they laiow that the same are objectionable and unlawful. In the present case, the claim of punitive damages is of Rs.5 lacs only which can be safely awarded. Had it been higher even this court would not have hesitated in awarding the same. The Court is of the view that the punitive damages should be really punitive and not flee bite and quantum thereof should depend upon the flagrancy of infringement."

¶41Learned counsel for the plaintiff prays that the damages be awarded for the loss of reputation and business as also the cost of the present proceedings. I am in agreement with the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff that damages in such cases must be awarded and a defendant, who chooses to stay away from the proceedings of the Court, should not be peraiitted to enjoy the benefits of evasion of court CS(OS) 1X66/2010 Page of34 proceedings. Any view to tlie contrary would result in a situation where the defendant who appears in Court and submits its account books would be liable for damages, while a party which chooses to stay away from court proceedings would escape the liability on account failure of the availability of account books. A party who chooses to not participate in court proceedings and stays away must, thus, suffer the consequences of damages as stated and set out by the plaintiff There is a larger public purpose involved to discourage such parties from indulging in such acts of ^ deceptionand, thus, even ifthe same has apunitiveelement,it must be granted. R.C. Chopra, J. has very sucxinctly set out in Time Incorporated's case (supra) that punitive damages are founded on the philosophy of corrective justice. That was the case where the publishers of Time Magazine had come to Court and one of the factors M'hich weighed while awarding punitive damages was that the readers had been sufferers of the infringement of the mark of the plaintiff The only difference is that in the present case it is the consumer of the products of the plaintiff, who have suffered, as a consequence of the infringement of the mark of ^ theplaintiffby the defendant.

¶42For the reasons stated above, the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of decree as prayed in the plaint. Accordingly, the order dated 15.11.2011 is confirmed and the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant with costs. Plaintiff is also entitled to the damages to the tune of Rs.2.00 lacs. \ G.S.SISTANS, MARCH 14,2012 ssn CS{OS) }566/2010 Pci^a34oj34

$-' * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DEIJH i % Judgment Delivered on: 14.03.2012 KSB AKTUiNGESl iLLSCI lAFT & ANR ..... Plaintiff Through: Mr.Shashi P. Ojha, Advocate versus ^ KS]3 COMMUNICATIONSAND ENGINEERSPVTL TD Defendant Through CORAlVf: HON 'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI G.S.SISTANl., J. (ORAL) j. Despite servicc, defendant has failed to file written statement or to appear in the matter. Accordingly, the defendant is proceeded ex parie. 2. pjaintiff has fried the present suit for permanent injunction, restraining inliingcmenL of trademark, copyright, delivery up, rendition of accounts etc. against the defendant. Summons in the suit and notice in the application were issued to defendants. By order dated 15.11.2011 this Court had restrained the defendants, its directors, assignees, distributors and dealersfrom using the letters"KSB" or any other deceptivelysimilar letters as part of the defendant'scoiporate name and/or trading name and/or on its goodwilland/or serviceswhich may be deceptivelysimilar to that of the plaintiffs trade mark/ name "KSB". 3. Defendanthas not enteredappearance. In supportofits case,plaintiffhas filed affidavit in evidence of the witness, Vijay Prabhakar Shidhaye, Senio]- Manager-DirectTaxes & Legal of the plaintiff No. 2 and the P"g,, "f3.4 constituted attorney of the plaintiff No. 1 and authorised signatory of the plaintiffs. The Power of Attorney dated 18.04.2011 by plaintiff No.1 in favour of the witness (Vijay Prabhakar Shidhaye) is exhibited as Ex-PW- 1/1; and the Power of Attorney dated 28"^ April, 2011 passed by the plaintiff No. 2 in favour of the witness (Vijay Prabhakar Shidhaye) is exliibited as Ex-PW-1/2. This witness has deposed on the line of the plaint stating that Mi-.xMayurAmritlal Mehta the Constituted Attorney of the Plaintiff No. 1 and the Company Secretary of the Plaintiff No. 2 has signed and verified the plaint on behalf of Plaintiffs. The Power of Attorney by Plaintiff No.l in favour of Mi-.Mayur Amritlal Mehta is already on record on pages 61-65 ofEist of Documents dated 20.07.2010 and the same is Ex-PW-1/3; and the Board Resolution dated 11.05.2007 passed by Plaintiff No. 2 in favour of Mr. Mayur Amritlal Mehta is exhibited as Ex-PW 1/4. 4. This witness has deposed that plaintiff No. 1 is a corporation incorporated under the laws of Federal Republic of Germany having registered office at Johann-Klein, Str. 9, 67227, Frankenthal, Germany; and the certificate issued by the Notary Public certifying that the plaintiff No.l is listed with the Registrar of Companies, Germany is already on record on page No. 66 of List of Document dated 20.07.2010 and the same is exhibited as Ex- PW- 1 /5. 5. Mr.Vijay Prabhakar Shidhaye, has also deposed that the letters KSB form an essential part of the coiporate name of the plaintiff No. I and in fact, the said letters KSB were so adopted having reference to the surnames of the founders ofthe plaintiffNo. 1. In 1871, one Johannes Klein, Friedrich Schanzlin and Jakob Becker formed a company under the name 'Frankenthaler Maschincn - & Armatur-Fabrik Klein, Schanzlin & Becker". In 1887, the said company bccame a Public limited Company. CS(OS) !566/2010 Page 2 of34 4- The name was changed to the present names incorporating the letters KSB being the first letters of the surnames of the three individuals mentioned hereinabovc. The plaintiff No. 1 is known as KSB in Germany for the more than 130 years. The plaintiff No. 1 and their group companies including holding/affiliate/subsidiary/associate companies are worldwide known as KSB for the last more than 130 years. There are many companies formed and/or promoted by the plaintiff No. 1 and/or which are associated with the plaintiff No. 1 all over the world with the letters KSB as part of their corporate names. The plaintiff No. 1 has 27 manufacturing sites worldwide with subsidiaries and representatives in over 100 countries. 6. This witness has also deposed that the plaintiff No.1 has also incorpora