The court found that the defendant's use of the word 'DARZI' as a trade name was dishonest and aimed at riding on the goodwill of the plaintiffs, leading to a finding of trademark infringement and passing off.

1. The plaintiffs Mr. Sunil Mittal and Darzi (India) LLP claiming to be registered proprietor of the label mark      

in respect of textile cloth included in Class 24 (of IV Schedule of Trade Marks Rules, 2002) have sued the defendant M/s Darzi on Call (a partnership of Md. Ali Reza, Ms. Nazia Nabi and Sh. Avinash Kumar) for injunction restraining the defendant from using the word “DARZI” or any other word, mark, label identical with or deceptively similar to the word/mark “DARZI” amounting to infringement of plaintiffs’ trademark and passing off its services as those of the plaintiffs’ and for ancillary reliefs, pleading:

(i) that the plaintiffs founded the business concern “THE DARZI” in the year 1981 to provide the finest quality of bespoke tailoring and made to measure to clients;

(ii) that the plaintiffs honestly and bona fidely conceived and adopted the trademark/label and trade name “THE DARZI” in respect of providing the services of tailoring and draping as well as relating to the trade and business of selling and marketing of all kinds of clothing and wearing apparels, textile clothes, readymade garments;

(iii) that to acquire rights, the plaintiffs filed Trade Mark (TM) Application No.1024154 in Class 24;

(iv) that subsequently several other applications in different classes have been filed and the same are pending registration;

(v) that the plaintiffs have been using the trademark/trade name/label “THE DARZI” continuously since the adoption till the present time;

(vi) that artistic work, placement of words, get up and make up of trademark/label are unique and the plaintiffs are the owners and proprietor in the artistic features in the trade name/trademark/label

“THE DARZI” and the artistic work involved in the trade name/trademark/label “THE DARZI” is registered under the Copyright Act, 1957; hence, the plaintiffs are the registered proprietor of the copyright involved in the artistic work of the trade name/trademark/label “THE DARZI”;

(vii) that the defendant claims to be engaged in the same nature of goods/services as that of the plaintiffs and has adopted an identical and/or deceptively similar trade name/trademark “DARZI ON CALL” in a manner which cannot be differentiated and distinguished from the plaintiffs trade name/trademark; (viii) that the word “DARZI” is pivotal and cardinal in the trade name/trademark of both, the plaintiffs and defendant; (ix) that the plaintiffs, immediately on coming to know of the defendant, made enquiries and found that the defendant had also filed TM application for registration of the trade name/trademark “DARZI ON CALL”;

(x) that the plaintiffs sent a cease and desist notice dated 15th October, 2015 to the defendant and to which though no reply was given but the plaintiffs did not find use by the defendant of the mark “DARZI ON CALL”;

(xi) however in August, 2016, the plaintiffs received query from its customers whether the plaintiffs had launched “DARZI ON CALL” and wherefrom the plaintiffs learnt that the defendant had again started use of the trademark/label “DARZI ON CALL”.

2. The suit came up first before this Court on 5th October, 2016, when finding (prima facie) that the defendant, besides using the word “DARZI” had also written the word “D” in the same style as in the mark of the plaintiffs, while issuing summons of the suit and notice of the application for interim relief, the defendant, till further orders, was restrained from using the trademark or trade name having as component thereof the word “DARZI” or any other trademark or trade name similar or deceptively similar thereto.

3. Vide subsequent ad-interim order dated 7th December, 2016, the defendant was permitted to use the alphabet “D” stylised as under:

logo

and the logo as under:

log