Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 2403
High Court of Delhi
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
Rspl Health Private Limited
Versus
M/S. Deep Industry
I.A. Nos. 10669 & 12699 of 2014 In CS (OS) No. 1660 of 2014
Decided On: 10-11-2014
For the Plaintiff:S.K. Bansal, with Ajay Amitabh Suman, Santosh Kumar & Amit Chanchal Jha Advocates.
For the Defendant:Abdhesh Chaudhary, With Nilendu Vatsyayan, Advocates.
Deceptive similarity of packaging leading to likelihood of confusion constitutes copyright infringement and passing off under the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Headnote:
Copyright Infringement - Washing Soaps - Copyright Act, 1957 - Section 2(1)(zg), Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for copyright infringement and passing off. The plaintiff claimed ownership of the trademark XPERT and copyright of the XPERT label under the Copyright Act, 1957. The defendant was accused of copying the plaintiff's label and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's, leading to a likelihood of confusion. The court also rejected the defendant's claims of delay and lack of jurisdiction, confirming the interim order in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: Copyright infringement, passing off, delay in filing the suit, jurisdiction
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's packaging was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's, leading to a likelihood of confusion. The court also rejected the defendant's claims of delay and lack of jurisdiction, confirming the interim order in favor of the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The interim order passed against the defendant was confirmed, and the plaintiff's applications were disposed of accordingly.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. The present suit for permanent injunction restraining infringement of copyright, passing off, rendition of accounts, delivery up etc. has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant. Alongwith the suit, plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC being I.A. 10669/2014.
2. Summons were issued in the suit and notice in the application to the defendant on 29th May, 2014. After hearing, detailed exparte order was passed against the defendants restraining them from manufacturing, marketing, supplying, using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising or by any other mode or manner dealing with the impugned artistic work/packaging/ label/trade dress/colour combination POSH Label or any other artistic work/packaging/label identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s said label/packaging/colour combination/artistic work XPERT Label in relation to the impugned goods, viz., all kinds of dish-wash bars and liquids, soaps and cleaning material and other allied and cognate goods or from doing any other acts or deeds amounting to infringement of plaintiff’s trademark XPERT and/or XPERT Label; passing off or otherwise violation by way of passing off the plaintiff’s trademark, label, trade dress XPERT and/or XPERT LABEL and infringement of plaintiff’s copyrights in the said XPERT artistic work/label or trade dress.
3. Upon service of interim order, defendant filed a written statement and an application bearing I.A. No 12699/2014 under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC for vacation of the interim order passed on 29th May, 2014. By this order, I propose to decide two pending applications i.e. I.A. 10669/2014 and I.A. No 12699/2014.
4. Brief facts of the case as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling washing soaps, washing powder, detergent cakes, and toiletries, bleaching preparations and substances for laundry use, cleaning, polishing, perfumery, hair lotions and other related goods, under the trademark XPERT. The said trademark is stated to have been conceived, coined and adopted by the predecessors of the plaintiff in the year 1993.
5. The plaintiff claims to be the owner and proprietor of the copyright of the XPERT and/or XPERT LABEL under the provisions of Copyright Act, 1957. The labels bearing the mark XPERT along with other features are stated to have a unique get up, make up, color scheme, lettering style, arrangement etc. The plaintiff also claims to be the owner of the punch lines ‘Pehle Istemal Karen Phir Vishwas Karen’ in relation to its goods.
6. Plaintiff and its predecessors have a number of trademark registrations in India for the trademark XPERT. While some of the applications for registration are pending. The details of the said applications are mentioned in a list in Para 8 of the plaint. The plaintiff holds copyright in the XPERT label as well as the punch lines.
7. It is averred by the plaintiff that the plaintiff’s goods bearing the said trademark/label are of excellent quality and high standard and are highly demanded in the markets. The said goods are distributed and sold across the country and have resulted in handsome sales and value trade.
8. Further it is averred that the plaintiff has been advertising and promoting its said trademark/label and said punch lines through different means and modes by way of extensive advertisements in national newspapers, magazines, hoardings, and various prominent national TV channels etc. The plaintiff has spent substantial amount of money thereof.
9. The plaintiff claims that the plaintiff’s trademark/label and said punch lines have become distinctive of the plaintiff. The public and trade associate, identify and distinguish the said trademark/label and the said punch lines with the plaintiff and plaintiff’s goods and business and the same have become well-known within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) and Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act,
