SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Del) 31

High Court Of Delhi
HINDUSTAN PENCILS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
INDIA STATIONERYPRODUCTS COMPANY - Respondent
Interim Application 2275 of 1988
Decided On : 01/23/1989

Advocates Appeared:
ANUP SINGH, H.P.SINGH, MANMOHAN SINGH, PARVIN ANAND, V.P.Chiraya

Fraudulent adoption or use of a trademark negates the defenses of laches and acquiescence and entitles the plaintiff to injunctive relief.

Headnote:

TRADEMARK - INFRINGEMENT - INTERIM INJUNCTION - DELAY - LACHES - ACQUIESCENCE - HONEST CONCURRENT USER - FRAUDULENT USER - PUBLIC INTEREST - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE INJURY - GRANT OF INJUNCTION.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiffs, the registered owners of the trademark 'NATARAJ' and the device of Nataraj, filed a suit for perpetual injunction alleging infringement of their trademark and prayed for an interim injunction against the defendants. The defendants contended that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the plaintiffs in filing the suit and that they were guilty of laches and acquiescence.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that mere delay, without anything more, cannot by itself be regarded as a good defense. Inordinate delay, however, has been a factor which has been taken into consideration while declining the relief of a grant of temporary injunction. The court further held that acquiescence is a different concept from laches and inordinate delay and that it requires a positive act of encouragement by the plaintiff to the defendant to use the infringing mark. The court also held that the user or adoption of the mark 'NATARAJ' by the defendants was clearly fraudulent as they had copied the plaintiffs' registered trademark and had not written their name and address on the cartons of the products, which was an attempt to mislead the general public.

Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were guilty of inordinate delay, laches, and acquiescence in filing the suit for infringement of trademark? 2. Whether the defendants' user or adoption of the mark 'NATARAJ' was honest or fraudulent? 3. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Inordinate delay, laches, and acquiescence are equitable defenses that may defeat a claim for injunctive relief, but they must be supported by evidence of prejudice to the defendant. 2. Fraudulent adoption or use of a trademark negates the defenses of laches and acquiescence and entitles the plaintiff to injunctive relief. 3. The balance of convenience and the public interest favor the grant of an interim injunction to prevent irreparable injury to the plaintiff's trademark rights.

Final Decision: The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the infringing mark 'NATARAJ' and the device of Nataraj or any similar mark or device which is an infringement on the plaintiff's registered trademarks.

B. N. KIRPAL

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs have filed a suit for perpetual injunction alleging infringement of their registered trade mark and have also prayed for a decree for rendition of accounts of profits against the defendants. Along with this suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 has also been filed for an interim injunction against the defendants, for restraining them from infringing the said mark.

( 2 ) FACTS, relevant for the disposal of the application for injunction, may first be noticed. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that they are the proprietors of the following two registered trade marks :

" (A) Trade mark NATRAJ with the device of Nataraj under No. 2604. 66 dated 6-11-1969 claiming user since 22-2-1961 in respect of pencils, refills for propelling pens and pencils, pen sharpners, pens, fountain pens, erasers, pin clips and stapples including in class 16.

(B) Device of NATARAJ under No. 283730 dated 27-10-1972 in respect of pencils all kinds, erasers, refills for propelling pens and pencils, pencil sharp- ners, pens, fountain peas, pins, clips, wire stapples for stappling presses and pins. "according to the plaintiffs, the aforesaid marks were adopted by them in the year 1961 and after registration the same are still valid and subsisting in the register of Trade Marks. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are incurring large expense of thousands of rupees by way of advertisement and the sale of their products under the trade mark of Nataraj is over eight crores. The plaintiffs have also placed on record copy of the certificate of their registered trade mark along with their registered label. Some of the labels and cartons bearing the said mark and device are printed in red colour. One such label contains the name nataraj and also has the photographs of the dancing Nataraj, which is the device which has been registered.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, in the middle of the year 1985 they got to know that the defendants had surreptitiously sot registered a copyright, with the Office of the Registrar of Copyright, a label similar to that of the plaintiffs in respect of pins. The defendants got this copyright in respect of pins under the name of Nataraj and a copy of the carton, which has been filed in Court, shows that the defendants have not only used the registered name of the plaintiffs, namely, Nataraj but have also used the device of the dancing Natarai which is identical to the dancing figure which has been registered by the plaintiffs with the Registrar of Trade Marks.

( 4 ) IT is alleged by the plaintiffs that the conduct of the defendants is fraudulent inasmuch as they are using the trade mark and the device of Nataraj in respect of stationery pins even though the plaintiffs are the registered owners of the said trade mark and device. This alleged, deliberate and dishonest act on the part of the defendants is stated to be causing a damage to the plaintiffs name, goodwill and business. According to the plaintiffs, pecuniary compensation will not afford them an adequate relief and if injunction is not granted, the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss and injury to the business name, reputetion and goodwill.

( 5 ) IT is further contended that after the plaintiffs got to know about the wrongful registration of the copvright by the defendants, they applied in June, 1985 with the Registrar of Stationery Products Co. and another Copyright for rectification and cancellation of the defendants tegistration. The proceedings so initiated are still stated to be pending before the Registrar of Copyright.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the allegations contained in the plaint and the application, supported by the documents placed on record, an ad interim ex parts injunction was granted, inter alia. restraining the defendants from manufacturing or selling pins and clips in the carton bearing the trade mark and device Nataraj of which trade mark and device the plaintiffs were the registered owners.

( 7 ) THE defend























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top