SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Del) 182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN, J.
Hugo Boss Trade Mark Management Gmbh & Co. Kg - Plaintiff
Versus
Ms. Sheeta Sabharwal T/A Boss Big Boss - Defendants
Cs(Comm) 1236 of 2018 & I.A. 15717 of 2018
Decided On : 11-01-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff :Mr. Karan Bajaj, Advocate with Ms. Shreya Sethi, Ms. Kangan Roda and Mr. Anirudh Bhatia, Advocates

The court upheld the protection of well-known trade marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and granted a permanent injunction to prevent trademark infringement and passing off.

Headnote:

TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT - Permanent injunction - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 9, 14, 18, 25, 35 - The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the plaintiff's well-known trade marks BOSS, HUGO BOSS and other BOSS formative marks. The court also directed the defendant to recall products bearing the impugned mark, change the store name, shut down specific webpages and social media handles, and allow inspection of accounts to ascertain damages.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, a global manufacturer and merchant in clothing and apparel, filed a suit for trademark infringement, passing off, unfair trade practices, and other reliefs against the defendant. The plaintiff claimed ownership of well-known trade marks and alleged that the defendant's use of the impugned mark BOSS BIG BOSS/BIG BOSS infringed its trademarks.

Finding of the Court:

The court found in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim as it had not entered appearance or filed a written statement. The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff and granted a permanent injunction, directing specific actions by the defendant and awarding costs to the plaintiff.

Issues: Trademark infringement, passing off, unfair trade practices, and other reliefs.

Ratio Decidendi: The defendant's failure to defend the claim and the plaintiff's ownership of the well-known trade marks led to the court's decision to grant a permanent injunction and other reliefs in favor of the plaintiff.

Final Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granted a permanent injunction, directed specific actions by the defendant, and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN, J.

1. Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademarks, passing off, unfair trade practices, delivery up, rendition of accounts and damages. Today, learned counsel for plaintiff is permitted to re-number the prayer clause after initialing the same. The corrected prayer clause is reproduced here-in-below:-

“A. Pass a decree of declaration that the trade marks BOSS, HUGO BOSS and BOSS formative/family of marks of the Plaintiff are well-known trade marks.

B. The Defendant, their partners, officers, employees, retailers, agents, distributors, suppliers, affiliates, subsidiaries, franchisees, representatives and assigns be restrained by a permanent injunction from:

i. Manufacturing, promoting, advertising, displaying, showcasing, selling and offering for sale any product bearing the impugned mark/name BOSS BIG BOSS/BIG BOSS or any other mark deceptively or confusingly similar to the Plaintiff’s earlier well-known trade marks BOSS, BOSS HUGO BOSS and other BOSS formative marks as a trade mark or a trade name or in any manner whatsoever, either as a trade mark or part of a trade mark, trade name or part of a trade name, corporate name or part of corporate name, company name or part of a company name, or a domain name or part of a domain name or in any other manner whatsoever so as to infringe the Plaintiff’s registered trade marks and formative marks;

ii. Manufacturing, promoting, advertising, displaying, showcasing, selling and offering for sale any product bearing the impugned mark/name BOSS BIG BOSS/BIG BOSS or any other mark deceptively or confusingly similar to the Plaintiff’s earlier well-knowntrade marks BOSS, BOSS HUGO BOSS and other BOSS formative marks in a manner which is identical or deceptively and confusingly similar to the writing style, fonts, stylization, layout, formation or in manner whatsoever so as to infringe the Plaintiff’s earlier trade marks;

iii. Manufacturing, promoting, advertising, displaying, showcasing any product bearing the impugned mark/name BOSS BIG BOSS/BIG BOSS or any other mark deceptively or confusingly similar to the Plaintiff’s registered well-known trade mark BOSS, BOSS HUGO BOSS and other BOSS formative marks or using the said Impugned Mark, in any manner whatsoever, either as a trade mark or part of a trade mark, trade name or part of a trade name, corporate name or part of corporate name, company name or part of a company name, or a domain name or part of a domain name or in any other manner whatsoever so as to pass off its goods/services as that of the Plaintiff;

iv. Allowing or permitting third parties to use, any other indicia whatsoever to show any association of the Defendant’s product/services with the Plaintiff products manufactured and sold under the earlier trade marks BOSS, BOSS HUGO BOSS and/or BOSS formative marks;

v. Disposing of or dealing with its assets in a manner which may adversely affect the Plaintiff’s ability to recover damages, costs or other pecuniary remedies which may be finally awarded to the Plaintiff.

C. The Defendant, its partners, directors, principals, proprietor, officers, employees, agents, distributors, suppliers, affiliates, subsidiaries, franchises, licensees, representatives, group companies and assigns be directed by a decree of mandatory injunction:

i. to hand over to the Plaintiff or its nominated representative all promotional material, catalogues, stationery labels, signs, prints packages, moulds, plates, dies, wrappers, receptacles and advertisements in its possession or under its control and any other material whatsoever bearing the impugned mark/name BOSS BIG BOSS/BIG BOSS or any other trade mark identical or deceptively or confusingly similar to the Plaintiff’s registered well-known trade marks BOSS, BOSS HUGO BOSS and other BOSS formative marks;

ii. Recall all the products and marketing, promotional and advertising materials that bear or incorporate the impugned mark/name BOSS BIG BOSS/BIG B
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top