Back
High Court Of Delhi
ASIAN PAINTS (INDIA) LTD. - Appellant
Versus
BALAJI PAINTS AND CHEMICALS - Respondent
Decided On : 03/10/2006
Trademark Infringement - Paints - Copyright Act, Section 2(c), Trademark Act, Section 2 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Copyright Act, Section 2(c), Trademark Act, Section 2 - The court discussed the plaintiff's claim of trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement in relation to the packaging material for its products. The court also referenced the Copyright Act, Section 2(c) and the Trademark Act, Section 2 in its analysis of the distinctive brand names and trade dress used by the plaintiff, as well as the defendants' use of similar trademarks and packaging material.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and damages in relation to its packaging material for paints and other products. The defendants were found to have adopted the plaintiff's trademarks and packaging, deceiving the public into believing that the goods sold by the defendants were those of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants infringed the plaintiff's rights by adopting the plaintiff's trademarks and packaging with the intent to deceive the public. The court also awarded damages to the plaintiff and issued a decree in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants.
Issues: The issues involved trademark and copyright infringement, passing off, and the entitlement to damages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants' use of the plaintiff's trademarks and packaging was not bona fide and constituted infringement. The court also referenced previous judgments to support the award of damages to the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The court issued a decree in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants, awarding damages and costs to the plaintiff.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a company incorporated and registered and the suit is instituted through Shri Sunil Jaifalkar. The Power of Attorney in his favour dated 27. 1. 2003 has been proved as Ex. P1.
( 3 ) THE plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of paints, varnishes, enamels and other like products and colour concentrates for the last more than 50 year and is stated to be the market leader in its field. The products of the plaintiff are stated to be marketed under distinctive brand names in containers and packaging bearing a distinctive trade dress and get up.
( 4 ) THE plaintiff s device, the image GATTU has a mischievous little boy with the lopsided grin as its mascot. This mascot is stated to have been originally created in the year 1954 by India s top cartoonist, R. K. Laxman.
( 5 ) THE plaintiff is the registered proprietor of trademark APCOLITE, ASIAN paints (DEVICE) UTSAV, TRACTOR and the TRACTOR (DEVICE ). The plaintiff is also the proprietor of the trade mark (device) of GATTU registered in Class 2 as on 27. 11. 1963. The plaintiff has proved as Ex. P2 and Ex. P3, the certificates of registration of trade mark for APCOLITE and packing material of plaintiff for sale of different enamels and paints as Ex. P4 to Ex. P6.
( 6 ) THE plaintiff claims original artistic work within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Copyright Act in respect of its container and packaging material as the same are stated to have distinctive colour scheme, layout and get up. The trade mark of the plaintiff is also stated to be written in a distinctive manner.
( 7 ) THE plaintiff has set forth in the plaint its sales figures running into crores of rupees and the advertising expenses itself run into about Rs. 69 crores for the year 2004-2005.
( 8 ) IN the last week of July, 2005, the plaintiff came across persons in delhi and adjoining areas who had commenced the use and started marketing synthetic enamel by adopting the trademarks of the plaintiff such as APCOLITE, apex and TRACTOR. Defendant No. 1 was found to manufacture and defendant No. 2 was found to be the retailer. On further enquiries, the plaintiff found that the defendants were also manufacturing the look alike products by using the trademarks SUPER ASIAN, GREAT ASIAN, ASIAN GOLD in the same manner as the trademark of the plaintiffs and the packaging material used by the defendants was identical to that of the plaintiff giving impression as if the product of the defendants is that of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 3 is apparently the shopkeeper.
( 9 ) DEFENDANTS No. 2 and 3 appeared before the court on 9. 12. 2005 and their statement was recorded in terms whereof they agreed to suffer a decree in terms of prayers (a) to (d) of para 33 of the plaint and to pay costs to the plaintiff of Rs. 10,000/- each. However, defendant No. 1 failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte and the plaintiff has led ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit. The affidavit has been filed by Shri Jaifalkar who has affirmed to the contents set out in the plaint and has proved the documents referred to aforesaid. The said witness has also proved as Ex. P7 to Ex. P9, the Notary s reports regarding purchase of the goods of the defendants and has proved the photographs of the defendant s products as Ex. P10 to Ex. P15.
( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the plaintiff has taken me through the pleadings and the documents as well as the affidavit of evidence filed by the plaintiff. The same show that the defendants have been adopting the trade marks of the plaintiff and trying to package their goods with the object of deceiving the public into believing that the goods sold by the defendants are those of the plaintiff. It ca
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
