High Court Of Delhi
PLAY BOY ENTERPRISES,INC. - Appellant
Versus
BHARAT MALIK - Respondent
Suit 1056 of 1994
Decided On : 04/18/2001
PLAYBOY - Trademark Infringement - Trade and Merchandise Marks act, 1958, Section 32 - The court discussed the validity of the trademark PLAYBOY and its protection under the Trade and Merchandise Marks act, 1958. It concluded that the defendant's adoption of the trademark PLAYWAY amounted to infringement and passing off, as it was deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion as to its source. The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, permanently injuncting the defendants from using any mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark PLAYBOY.
( 1 ) PLAINTIFF-PLAYBOY Enterprises Inc. is a publisher of widely known magazine PLAYBOY which is pre-eminently sex oriented and male entertainment magazine though it is also interspersed with information on current affairs, issues of international interest, interviews of celebrities, articles on health, games and sports, comedy, cooking recipes etc. The popularity of the magazine is so wide spread that the plaintiff is known mainly through this magazine, though it has vast business empire which has diversified into manufacture, licensing, franchise and sale of a variety of products ranging from cosmetics, toilet preparations, watches, travel and office desk clocks, stationary goods and coordinated desk accessories, candy and confectioneries, costume Jewellery, keyrings, coordinated bath robes and towels, decorative cushions, luggage, small leather goods, shoes, sunglasses and ophthalmic frames, pipes and cigarette lighters, sportswear, beach bags and towels, household linens, kitchen textiles, headwear and coverups, women s underwear and sleepwear,- automotive accessories, seat covers and cushions, air fresheners and aerosol sprays etc. It is the registered proprietor of the mark PLAYBOY in India with several other countries all over the world, namely, algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, benelux, Bermuda, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, canada, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominion Republic, Ecuador, egypt, Eire (Ireland), El Salvador, England, Finland, france, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guyana, Holland, hongkong, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, jamaica, etc.
( 2 ) THE registrations are more than seven years old and are, therefore, conclusively valid under the provisions of Section 32 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as- tmm Act ), which is as under;
"32. Registration to be conclusive as to validity after seven years.- Subject to the provision s, of section 35 - and section 46, in all legal proceedings relating to a trade mark registered "in Part A of the register (including applications under section 56) the original registration of the trade mark shall, after the expiration of seven years from the date of such registration, be taken to be valid in all respects unless it is proved - (a) that the original registration was obtained by fraud; or (b) that the trade mark was registered in contravention of the provisions of section 11 or offends against the provisions of that section on the date of commencement of the proceedings; or (c) that the trade mark was not, at the commencement of the proceedings, distinctive of the goods of the registered proprietor. "
( 3 ) IT is averred that being one of the largest business houses of the world the mark PLAYBOY has become a household name in the relevant circles on account of extensive sales and advertisement in the international media as to its products though initially it was adopted for the entertainment magazines. The first issue of playboy was introduced in December 1953 in the USA and since then it has attained popularity by leaps and bounds. In other words we may say that it had played with the word play so much that one is bound to entertain confusion with the plaintiff s product the moment any other person to play or exploit the word play for the title of magazine or periodical.
( 4 ) ONE such effort was made by Chuckleberry publishing Inc. which began publishing in Italy a magazine with sophisticated title playmen . Though the title was in English but it was written entirely in italian. Apprehending that distribution of this PLAYMEN magazine would infringe their popularity rights in the playboy market the plaintiff moved for injunction. The argument of the plaintiff that the title PLAYMEN was likely. to cause confusion amongst the consumers - firstly because it was similar, in form and content and secondly both the magazines aimed to attract the same market of c
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.