High Court Of Calcutta
Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Rajendra Nath Sinha
AMAR NATH CHAKROBORTY - Appellant
Versus
DUTTA BUCKET INDUSTRIES - Respondent
F. M. A. 2478 Of 2004
Decided On : 03/17/2005
TAJ - TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT - PASSING OFF - SECTION 12, 21, 30(1)(B) OF THE TRADE AND MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1958 - The court held that the respondent's trademark, MAJ, was deceptively similar to the appellant's earlier registered trademark, TAJ, and that the appellant was entitled to an injunction restraining the respondent from using the MAJ trademark. The court found that the two marks were similar in size, shape, color combination, and overall design, and that they were likely to deceive or cause confusion in the minds of ordinary purchasers.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a manufacturer and marketer of buckets under the trademark TAJ, filed a suit for declaration, injunction, and damages against the respondents, who were using the deceptively similar trademark MAJ on their buckets. The appellant claimed that the respondents' trademark infringed its registered trademark, violated its copyright in the artistic work of the TAJ label, and constituted passing off.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents' trademark MAJ was deceptively similar to the appellant's earlier registered trademark TAJ, and that the appellant was entitled to an injunction restraining the respondent from using the MAJ trademark. The court also found that the appellant had not acquiesced in the respondents' use of the MAJ trademark.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents' trademark MAJ was deceptively similar to the appellant's earlier registered trademark TAJ. 2. Whether the appellant was entitled to an injunction restraining the respondent from using the MAJ trademark. 3. Whether the appellant had acquiesced in the respondents' use of the MAJ trademark.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondents' trademark MAJ was deceptively similar to the appellant's earlier registered trademark TAJ based on the following factors: - The two marks were similar in size, shape, color combination, and overall design. - The prominent word "maj" in the respondents' trademark was deceptively similar to the word "taj" in the appellant's trademark. - The marks were likely to deceive or cause confusion in the minds of ordinary purchasers, particularly those who were not proficient in English.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the trial court. The court granted an injunction restraining the respondents from using the trademark "maj" until the disposal of the suit.
( 1 ) THIS application is at the instance of a plaintiff in a suit for declaration and injunction alleging violation of registered Trade mark and copyright and also complaining "passing Off' and is directed against order No. 31 dated 27th April, 2004 passed by the learned Judge, 3rd Bench, city Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit No. 27 of 2003 thereby rejecting an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the appellant for restraining the respondents from committing breach of trade Mark and copyright and passing off his own goods as that of the appellant.
( 2 ) THE appellant filed in the City Civil Court at Calcutta, a suit being Title suit No. 27 of 2003 thereby claiming the following relief:" (A) Declaration that the plaintiff alone is entitled to use the trade mark and/or the artistic work and/or the name, brand TAJ appearing in the label marked 'a' and annexed to the plaint for carrying on its business in respect of Buckets, Pans, Mugs, Drums and allied goods and/or goods of the same description; (B) Decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their proprietors, partners, directors, and every person in charge of and for the conduct of the business and each of them whether by themselves or by their servants, agents, dealers, stockists, or otherwise howsoever from infringing the plaintiffs registered trade mark TAJ, as per annexure 'a' hereto or any other mark, name, brand either same and/or visually and/or phonetically similar to the plaintiffs original trade mark TAJ or colorable imitation thereof; (C) Decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their proprietors, partners, directors and every person in charge of and for the conduct of the business and each of them whether by themselves or by their servants, agents, dealers, stockists, or otherwise howsoever from infringing the plaintiffs copyright in respect of the artistic work (label) TAJ, registered under No. A-56999/99, or any label (artistic work) similar thereto; (D) Decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants whether by themselves, their proprietor, partners, directors, employees, servants, agents or otherwise howsoever from in any way manufacturing, selling or offering for sale or marketing or advertising the products viz. Buckets and goods allied thereto bearing the trade mark MAJ as per annexure 'b' hereto, or any other mark which is phonetically and/or visually similar thereto; (E) Decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their proprietors, partners, directors, and every person in charge of and for the conduct of the business and each of them whether by themselves or by their servants, agents, dealers, stockists, or otherwise howsoever from using, selling, advertising the mark/artistic work TAJ (label)or any name or mark or brand or work being identical with and/or deceptively similar to and/or a colorable imitation of the plaintiffs original trade mark/artistic work TAJ as in annexure 'a' hereto, in any form and manner whatsoever, in the course of business; (F) Perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their proprietors, partners, directors, and every person in charge of and for the conduct of the business and each of them whether by themselves or by their servants, agents, dealers, stockists, or otherwise howsoever from passing of or attempting to pass off or causing or enabling or assisting others to pass off Buckets, Pans, Mugs, Drums and/or goods of same description in the course of trade with the name/work/mark TAJ as in annexure 'a', and MAJ as in annexure 'b' hereto in any form, get up, manner whatsoever; (G) Delivery up for destruction of all impugned goods, papers, labels and/or documents, packets, wrappers, stickers, in the possession, custody or control of the defendants or any of them which bear the mark/name/work maj as in annexure "b" hereto in any form whatsoever; (H) Leave under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of
Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Midas Hygiene Industries (Put) Ltd. vs. Sudhir Bhatia and Ors.
Satyam Infoway Limited vs. Sitynit Solution
Whirlpool Company and Anr. vs. N. R. Dongre
REFERRED TO : Amritadhara Pharmacy vs. Satya Deo Gupta
Corn Products Refining Company vs. Sangrilla Food Products Limited
Power Control Appliances and Ors. vs. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd.
Strassenburg Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Himalaya Drug Company and Anr.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.