Back
High Court Of Delhi
SHARP L.P.G.PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
SEIKO ENGINEERS - Respondent
Interim Application 747 of 1987
Decided On : 12/16/1987
TRADEMARK - SEIKO - INJUNCTION - PASSING OFF - SIMILARITY OF TRADEMARKS - CONFUSION AND DECEPTION - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - IRREPARABLE INJURY - Prima facie case established for grant of injunction.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff claimed to have been using the trademark SEIKO for electronic mosquito repellents/destroyers since February 1986 and had acquired goodwill and reputation. Defendant, a partnership firm, claimed to be the first inventor, adopter, and user of the trademark SEIKO since 1981 and alleged that the plaintiff was manufacturing and selling mosquito repellents under the trademark SEIKO at their instance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had been able to prima facie establish that they were using the trademark SEIKO for mosquito destroyer/repellant since February 1986, much prior to the manufacturing and marketing of the same goods by the defendant. The court also found that the plaintiff had been able to establish that their goods had become by user distinctive of the plaintiff's goods.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction? 2. Whether the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction as they had been using the trademark SEIKO for mosquito destroyer/repellant since February 1986, much prior to the manufacturing and marketing of the same goods by the defendant. The court also found that the plaintiff had been able to establish that their goods had become by user distinctive of the plaintiff's goods. The court further held that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff as in case the defendants were not restrained, the plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable injury, as the suit was likely to take some time before it is decided.
Final Decision: The court allowed the plaintiff's application for a temporary injunction and restrained the defendants from manufacturing, selling, or offering for sale or otherwise dealing in mosquito repellents under the trademark SEIKO till the final disposal of the suit.
( 1 ) THE Plaintiff in this suit claims a decree for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in electronic mosquito repellent/destroyer under the trade mark SEIKO or any other trade mark identical and/or deceptively similar to plaintiff s trade mark SEIKO and for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from passing off their electronic mosquito repellent/destroyers etc which may be identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff s trade mark SEIKO on the following allegations made in the plaint :- That since the year 1986 (20. 2. 1986) the plaintiff has been carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing of electronic mosquito repellant/ destroyers. The plaintiff has been using the trade mark SEIKO for their electronic mosquito repellant/destroyers. An application has been filed for registration of the said trade mark SEIKO before the Registrar of trade marks and the same is likely to be allowed in due course of time. The plaintiff has given wide publicity to its trade mark SEIKO and the said products under the said trade mark SEIKO connote and denote the goods and merchandise of the plaintiff s origin and of none else. The plaintiff s sales of the aforesaid goods under the trade mark SEIKO run in several lakhs of rupees. On account of superior quality of the goods and due to continuous and extensive use of the trade mark SEIKO coupled with large scale advertisement and publicity the plaintiff s trade mark has acquired enviable goodwill and impeccable reputation among the public and trade. The trade and public have come to associate the said goods under the trade mark SEIKO exclusi- vely with the plaintiff and none else. The defendants have recently started the manufacture and sale of the said good under the identical and/or decep- tively similar trade mark SEIKO of their own. The adoption and use of the trade mark SEIKO by the defendants is deliberate and intentional and in clear and flagrant violation of the plaintiff s legal and vested rights in the use of I the trade mark SEIKO of which the defendants are fully aware. It has been done with dishonest and malafide intention to trade upon the plaintiff s hard earned reputation and to earn profits in illegal manner for which they are not entitled under the law. The purchasers and intending purchasers of the said goods such as electronic mosquito repellants/destroyers are housewives, ser- vants, assistants etc which is an unwary class of purchasers who demand and recognise the plaintiffs products by the trade mark SEIKO. The confusion and deception is inevitable among the public and trade due to close deceptive similarity of trade marks. The defendants are guilty of passing off their inferior and substandard goods as and for the superior quality products of the plaintiff. The adoption of the same trade mark SEIKO by the defendants for the same goods is bound to deceive the customers into believe that they are buying from the defendants the same goods of the manufacture of the plaintiff while in fact they are buying the goods of the defendant. It is claimed that the plaintiff has suffered damages to the trade and reputation and further damage to the trade and reputation is inevitable unless the defendants are restrained immediately by an injunction order from violating the plaintiff s legal and vested rights in the use of the trade mark SEIKO.
( 2 ) NOTICE of the suit was given to the defendant who is contesting the claim of the plaintiff. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant, various pleas have been taken by way of preliminary objection. It has been stated that the suit of the plaintiff is neither bonafide nor correct and the facts stated therein are wholly false and fabricated. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the wrong party deliberately and intentionally in order to keep the court in total darkness by suppressing all the material and important facts. The s
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
