Back
High Court Of Delhi
VRAJLAL MANILAL AND COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
N.S.BIDI COMPANY - Respondent
Interim Application 3766 of 1986
Decided On : 03/26/1987
TRADEMARK - INFRINGEMENT - PASSING OFF - SIMILARITY OF LABELS - INJUNCTION - Bidi manufacturers - Plaintiff's registered trademark '22' and label used for decades - Defendant's use of '12' and similar label - Whether infringement and passing off - Interim injunction granted.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a bidi manufacturer, sued the defendant for infringement of its registered trademark '22' and label, and passing off. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's use of '12' and a similar label was likely to deceive and confuse consumers. The defendant denied the allegations and claimed that its label was not deceptively similar to the plaintiff's.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had been using its trademark and label for decades and had acquired a unique reputation and goodwill in the market. The court also found that the defendant's label was extremely close to the plaintiff's label and was likely to deceive and confuse consumers. The court held that the defendant's conduct was calculated to pass off its goods as those of the plaintiff and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned trademark and label.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant's use of '12' and a similar label infringed the plaintiff's registered trademark '22' and label? 2. Whether the defendant's conduct amounted to passing off? 3. Whether an interim injunction should be granted?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the defendant's use of '12' and a similar label was likely to deceive and confuse consumers and amounted to infringement of the plaintiff's registered trademark '22' and label. 2. The court held that the defendant's conduct was calculated to pass off its goods as those of the plaintiff and amounted to passing off. 3. The court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction and that the balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, or otherwise dealing in bidis under the trade mark/labels which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the label '22' of the plaintiff till the final disposal of the suit.
( 1 ) THE plaintiffs have filed a suit for perpetual injunction praying for the following reliefs :
(I) For perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, representatives, dealers ad all other persons on their behalf from manufacturing, selling or otherwise dealing in bidis under the trade mark consisting of numerals 12 or any other trade mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs registered trade marks 22, under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. (ii) For perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, dealers, representatives and all other persons on their behalf from infringing/offending or violating the plaintiffs copyrights by printing, publishing reproducing or otherwise dealing in the labels entitled 12 or any other label identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs label 22; (in) For perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, their servants, agents, dealers, representatives and all other persons on their behalf from passing off their bidis as and for those of the plaintiffs or connected with the plaintiffs under the trade mark or lable 12 and/or any other trade mark/label which may be identical and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs trade mark/label 22;
( 2 ) ALONG with the suit the plaintiffs have filed I. A. 3766/1986 under 0. 39, Rr. 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying that during the pendency of the suit the defendants and their servants may be restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in the bidis under the trade mark/label 12 or any other trade mark/label which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the label 22 of the plaintiffs.
( 3 ) THE plaint proceeds on the allegations that the plaintiff firm has been carrying on the well established business of manufacturing and marketing of bidis for the last more than 5 decades. It is stated that since 1935 the plaintiffs have been using the trade mark/labels consisting of numerals 22 for their aforesaid bidis and that the trade marks/labels comprising and/or consisting of numerals 22 are duly registered in the name of the plaintiff under the provisions of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958. It is further contended that the registration of the trade marks had been renewed from time to time and the same are still valid, subsisting and effective throughout India. If is next contended that the plaintiffs have also been using the said trade mark in the form of labels for the purpose of marketing their bidis since 1935. The salient features of the said labels are stated to be "that the label has a blue colour background. On the top of the label, there appears a white blank whereon trade name/trading style of plaintiffs appears in black colour in Hindi. The bottom of the label similarly has a white blank whereon the trading style of the plaintiffs appears in black colour in English. The entire middle portion of the label is occupied by the picture of heart in red colour and is surrounded by golden colour lines. On the red colour heart the trade mark 22 of the plaintiff appears in golden colour surrounded by black colour lines. "
( 4 ) IT further states that the colour scheme, get up, lay out, writing style and arrangement of the plaintiffs label is unique and artistic and the same appeals to the eyes. The plaintiffs have claimed to be the owners of the copyright of the said label under the law. The plaintiffs assert that they have given wide publicity to their trade mark 22 and artistic labels entitled 22 and the said goods viz. , bidis under the said trade mark and label 22 connote and denote the goods and merchandise of the plaintiffs origin and of one else. The sales of the bidis run in several crores of rupees. The plaintiff claims that their trade mark and label entitled 22 have acquired unique reputation and enviable goodwill in public and trade and the bidis under the
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
