High Court Of Delhi
METRO PLAYING CARD COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
WAZIR CHAND KAPOOR - Respondent
First Appeal Order 1 of 1972
Decided On : 04/05/1972
TRADEMARK - INFRINGEMENT - INTERIM INJUNCTION - REGISTRATION PENDING - NO STAY OF SUIT - NO TERMS IMPOSED ON RESPONDENT - APPEAL DISMISSED WITH COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a manufacturer and seller of playing cards, registered the trademark "TRACTOR" with the device of a tractor in Class 16. The appellant, also a trader in playing cards, adopted the trademark "FERGUSON" and used the device of a tractor on the back of its playing cards. The respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction and damages, alleging infringement of its registered trademark and passing off. An interim injunction was granted restraining the appellant from using the trademark "FERGUSON" and the device of a tractor.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the device of a tractor on the appellant's playing cards was patently similar to the device of a tractor of the respondent's registered trademark. The court also held that the appellant's application for registration of the trademark "FERGUSON" did not confer any right on the appellant and, prima facie, there was an infringement of the respondent's trademark. The court further held that there was no evidence on the record to show honest concurrent user.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's use of the trademark "FERGUSON" and the device of a tractor infringed the respondent's registered trademark? 2. Whether the appellant's application for registration of the trademark "FERGUSON" should have stayed the respondent's suit? 3. Whether terms should be imposed on the respondent in case the suit is ultimately dismissed on the plea of the appellant regarding concurrent user?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the device of a tractor on the appellant's playing cards was patently similar to the device of a tractor of the respondent's registered trademark. The court also held that the appellant's application for registration of the trademark "FERGUSON" did not confer any right on the appellant and, prima facie, there was an infringement of the respondent's trademark. 2. The court held that the mere acceptance of an application for registration of a trademark or its advertisement confers no right on the appellant and, prima facie, there is an infringement of the trademark. 3. The court held that no terms can be imposed on the respondent for there is no such prayer either in the appeal before us or even in the reply filed by the appellant in the original side.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court sitting on the original side whereby an interim injunction was issued against the appellant on a motion by the respondent.
( 2 ) THE respondent/plaintiff manufactures and sells playing cards. On 8th February, 1966, the respondent/plaintiff registered under No. 233581 in Class 16 a trade mark consisting of the device of a tractor and the word "tractor" for his playing cards. The appellant defendant also trades in playing cards and it is alleged by the respondent that early in 1971 he came to know that the appellant had adopted the trade mark "ferguson" in relation to its playing cards and was marketing the same under that name also using the device of a tractor on the back of the playing cards. The respondent, therefore, brought an action against the appellant seeking permanent injunction restraining the appellant from infringing the reistered trade mark of the respondent and passing off its goods as those of the respondent. A prayer was also made for rendition of accounts, damages etc. Along with the suit the respondent filed an application (I. A. 963 of 1971) under Order 89, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that during the pendency of the suit an interim injunction may be issued restraining the appellant-defendant, its agents and representatives from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in playing cards bearing the trade mark "ferguson" and tractor and/or any mark resembling thereto, calculated to cause confusion and amounting to infringement and/ or passing off as and for the genuine trade mark of the respondent/plaintiff.
( 3 ) THE appellant resisted both the suit and the interlocutory application. It pleaded that its application for registration of the "ferguson" trade mark has been accepted for registration in the Trade Mark Registry at Bombay in Class 16 and has been advertised in the Trade Mark Journal No. 531 dated 16th July, 1971 to which the plaintiff-respondent has filed his opposition on September 11, 1971; that it has been in the trade of manufacturing, and selling cards using the mark "ferguson" since February, 1966; that the trade mark "ferguson" does not in any way infringe the registered trade mark of the respondent-plaintiff; that playing cards are sold in sealed cartons and although the playing cards manufactured by the appellant have the device of tractor on the back of the playing cards merely as an ornamental device with the word "ferguson" printed thereon in a comer yet the carton does not have the device of the tractor and has only the trade mark "ferguson" on it and so, there is neither any infringement nor would an unwary purchaser be led to purchase the appellant s playing cards in the belief that the same were manufactured and marketed by the respondent.
( 4 ) THE learned Single Judge after hearing the parties was of the view that the device of tractor on the playing cards of the appellant did amount to any infringement of the registered trade mark of the respondent and so, issued a temporary injunction for the duration of the suit restraining the appellant, its agents and representatives from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in playing cards printed with the device of a tractor or any mark resembling therewith.
( 5 ) MR. Anoop Singh, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has urged that no prima facie case had been made by the respondent to justify the issue of an interim injunction. We are not impressed by this contention at all. The device of the tractor on the playing cards manufactured by the appellant is patently similar to the device of the tractor of which the respondent has obtained registration. It may be that there is no device of the tractor on the carton of the appellant s playing cards but then it is common knowledge that playing cards are purchased not only by looking at the carton but a
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.