IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
Roland Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Sandeep Jain & Others - Respondent
CS(COMM). No. 565 of 2018 & CC. (COMM). No. 6 of 2018
Decided On : 06-01-2021
BOSS - Trademark Infringement - Sections 9, 15, 33 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The court found that the plaintiff, a world leader in electronic musical instruments, failed to establish goodwill and reputation in India at the time of adoption of the trademark by the defendant. The defendant's adoption of the mark was held to be honest and concurrent. The plaintiff was found guilty of laches and acquiescence. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed, and the defendant was restrained from using the mark in contravention of its statement recorded in the court order.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a Japanese company, sought to restrain the defendants from passing off their goods using the trademark BOSS. The plaintiff claimed to be the registered proprietor of the BOSS trademark in India and alleged that the defendants had dishonestly adopted the mark and trade dress.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove goodwill and reputation in India at the time of adoption of the trademark by the defendant. The plaintiff was held guilty of laches and acquiescence. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed, and the defendant was restrained from using the mark in contravention of its statement recorded in the court order.
Issues: The issues included the plaintiff's proprietorship of the BOSS trademark, prior use by the defendant, passing off by the defendants, and the plaintiff's delay, latches, and acquiescence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the territoriality principle, holding that the plaintiff's claim of being the first adopter of the mark worldwide was irrelevant without establishing goodwill and reputation in India. The defendant's adoption of the mark was found to be honest and concurrent. The plaintiff was held guilty of laches and acquiescence.
Final Decision: The plaintiff's suit was dismissed, and the defendant was restrained from using the mark in contravention of its statement recorded in the court order. The defendant's counter-claim was dismissed, and both parties were left to bear their own costs.
JUDGMENT :
1. The plaintiff, in the year 2007, instituted this suit, to restrain (a) Sandeep Jain, Proprietor Hi Tone Electronics; (b) Hi Tone Electronics; and, (c) Janata Electronics, by way of permanent injunction, from passing off their goods as that of the plaintiffs by using the trade mark BOSS or Hi Tone BOSS and for ancillary reliefs.
2. It is the case of the plaintiff, (i) that the plaintiff is a company incorporated in Japan in the year 1972, engaged in manufacturing, marketing and exporting electronic musical instruments, electronic equipment and software and is a world leader in design, manufacture and distribution of electronic musical instruments including keyboards and synthesizers, guitar products, electronic percussion kits, digital recording equipment, amplifiers and audio processing devices; (ii) the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of various trade marks including BOSS, RODGERS, RSS, EDIROL and ROLAND, in respect of electronic equipments; (iii) the trade mark BOSS is used in respect of compact effect pedals, twin effect pedals, multi effect pedals, acoustic processors, metronomes, tuners, rhythm machines, sound recording equipment and also accessories and is recognized across the world as a hallmark in musical equipment; (iv) the BOSS mark was first used in June, 1976, in respect of Chorus Ensemble products in Japan, and was adopted to connote “lead role”; (v) the trade mark BOSS has been registered in favour of the plaintiff in India, in Classes 9 and 15, with effect from 2nd July, 2004; (vi) Rivera Digitec (India) Pvt. Ltd. was established in Mumbai as exclusive distributor of products of the plaintiff, to serve the Indian music industry, by making available to them the musical instruments under the brands Roland, BOSS and Edirol; (vii) the plaintiffs, through their distributor, have been importing products bearing the mark BOSS in India since 1993 and have acquired an excellent reputation by continuous import and sale of BOSS products; (viii) the sales in India of goods bearing the mark BOSS have risen from Rs.68,68,330/- in 2002-2003 to Rs.96,79,190/- in 2006-2007; (ix) the defendant no.2 Hi Tone Electronics, of which defendant no.1 Sandeep Jain is the proprietor and defendant no.3 Janata Electronics is retailer, is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing musical instruments such as amplifiers, microphones, speakers, stereos, mixers and cassette players under the trade mark BOSS and also exporting products under the mark Hi Tone BOSS; (x) the defendant no.2, on its website www.hitoneelectronics.com, advertises products under the trade mark BOSS; (xi) the defendants have also registered the trade mark BOSS in India in Class 9; (xii) the manner of use and of the trade mark BOSS by the defendant is the same as that of the trade mark of the plaintiff; (xiii) the defendants have dishonestly adopted the trade mark and trade dress of the plaintiff; and, (xiv) at the time when the defendants registered the trade mark, the plaintiff’s products were already well-known under the said trade mark.
3. The suit, accompanied with an application for ex parte ad interim relief, came up first before this Court on 23rd April, 2007, when though summons of the suit and notice of the application were ordered to be issued, no ex parte relief claimed, granted.
4. The defendant no.2 has contested the suit by filing written statement and also filed a Counter-Claim, pleading that (i) the defendant no.2, a partnership concern, adopted the trade mark BOSS in relation to public address amplifiers, echo and reverb amplifiers, microphones, speakers, disco lights and sound invertors and other similar products, way-back on 15th January, 1979 and have been using the trade mark BOSS continuously and extensively since then; (ii) the trade mark BOSS was adopted since the defendant no.2 was the first entity in India to start manufacturing echo, reverb amplifiers, disco lights, sound invertors; (iii) the defendant no.2 commissi
Neon Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Medical Technologies Ltd. (2016) 2 SCC 672
Milmet Oftho Industries Vs. Allergan Inc. (2004) 12 SCC 624
N.R. Dongre Vs. Whirlpool Corporation (1996) 5 SCC 714
Prius Auto Industries Ltd. Vs. Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha (2017) 236 DLT 343 (DB)
William Grant & Sons Ltd. Vs. McDowell & Company Ltd. 1994 (30) DRJ 105
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Prius Auto Industries Limited (2018) 2 SCC 1
The court established that the rights of the prior user of a trademark are superior to those of a subsequent user, emphasizing the elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage in passing off c....
The court found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion and passing off.
Court found the defendant's mark 'MONTEE' to be deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered mark 'BOUNTEE', justifying interim relief for trademark infringement and passing off.
The court emphasized the importance of prior and extensive use of trademarks, substantial investment in promoting the marks, and the potential for confusion in determining trademark infringement and ....
Plaintiffs failed to prove prior use and goodwill for 'BROAD PEAK' in India, thus no basis for trademark infringement or passing off against defendants who adopted the mark bona fide.
Section 24(4)(c) does not expect the registered trade mark of the plaintiff to have become a well-known Trade Mark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(z)(g)”.
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.