Back
2006 Supreme(Del) 2400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
Intel Corporation - Appellant
Versus
Anil Hada - Respondent
IA No. 4567 of 2002 in CS (OS) No. 933 of 2002 and IA No. 11494 of 2001 in CS (OS) No. 209 of 2004
Decided on : 06-11-2006
Arvind Minocha, N. Safaya, Praveen Anand and Swetashree Majumdar, Advocates
The main legal point established is the significance of prima facie evidence, equitable relief, and the impact of delay, laches, and acquiescence in trademark infringement cases.
Headnote:
INTEL - Trademark Infringement - Class 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 28 - The court discussed the claim of the plaintiff in the mark 'INTEL', its registration, and the defendant's use of the word 'INTEL' as part of their corporate name. The court highlighted the legal provisions related to trademarks, trans-border reputation, protection against dilution, and the importance of domain name registrations in the internet era. The court also emphasized the principles of equitable relief, balance of convenience, and the significance of delay, laches, and acquiescence in trademark infringement cases.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Intel Corporation, sought an interim injunction against the defendants in two suits for using the word 'INTEL' as part of their corporate names.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants' use of the word 'INTEL' did not constitute deceptive or dishonest adoption, and there was no prima facie evidence of trademark infringement. The court dismissed the applications for interim injunction.
Issues: The issues involved trademark infringement, deceptive adoption, delay in bringing action, and balance of convenience.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence, equitable relief, and the significance of delay, laches, and acquiescence in trademark infringement cases.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the applications for interim injunction, noting that the observations and findings were merely prima facie and not conclusive, and the issue would be decided based on proved facts in the trial.
JUDGMENT :
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
The 2 captioned applications have been filed by the common plaintiff in the 2 suits, namely, Intel Corporation seeking an interim injunction against the defendants in the 2 suits from using the word 'INTEL' as a part of their corporate name.
2. At the outset, it may be noted that the defendants are not using the word 'INTEL' as their trademark or trade name. Defendant of Suit No. 209/2004, Intel Engineering Pvt. Limited uses the word 'INTEL' as a part of its corporate name. Similarly, defendant of Suit No. 933/2002 Intel Travels Pvt. Limited uses the word 'INTEL' as a part of its corporate name.
3. Whereas Intel Engineering Pvt. Limited is engaged in the business of re-conditioning and marketing office equipment such as photocopiers, fax machines and printers which contain memory chips and processors for efficiency and to converge with other office equipments eg., computers; Intel Travels Pvt. Limited is engaged in the service industry of tours, travels and hospitality.
4. The 2 suits concern the claim of the plaintiff in the mark 'INTEL' which plaintiff claims is a coined word, not existing in any recognised dictionary of the world. Plaintiff claims registration of the mark 'INTEL' and a design registration in its favour pertaining to the style in which plaintiff writes the word 'INTEL' in respect of goods falling in class-9, including 14, 16, 18, 21, 25 and 28 relating to a wide variety of activities including micro-processors, parts and fittings etc. It is claimed by the plaintiff that on its own and through its subsidiaries, it is engaged, worldwide, in the business relating to computers and parts thereof including semi-conductor devices, memory chips, micro-processors, central processing unit, mother boards, software and telecommunications.
5. Plaintiff claims that the word 'INTEL' is a coined word having a very high degree of inherent distinctiveness.
6. According to the plaintiff, it has used the word 'INTEL' as its corporate name and as a trademark on its products since 1968. The use of the name and the mark 'INTEL' is stated to be first used by the plaintiff in the United States of America and subsequently extended to other countries of the world.
7. According to the plaintiff, its trademark 'INTEL', is well known and has acquired worldwide recognised following the first launch of the micro-processors in the year 1971.
8. Plaintiff claims that since 1972 it had been selling its products in India, though formerly business operations were opened in India in 1988 when a branch office was opened by the plaintiff in the silicon city of Bangalore.
9. Currently, plaintiff states, its brand products are marketed and promoted in India through wholly owned subsidiaries, named, Intel Asia Electronic and Intel Technology Pvt. Ltd.
10. Plaintiff claims that by virtue of prior adoption, prior use and registration, as well as extensive publicity and promotion, the trademark 'INTEL' has earned substantive goodwill and reputation among members of the trade and public which associates the mark/name 'INTEL' with the plaintiff and no one else.
11. Pleading its case against Intel Engineering Pvt. Limited, i.e., the defendant of Suit No. 209/2004, it is stated by the plaintiff that the defendants are carrying business of importing photocopiers, fax machines, laser printers and other office equipment. Additionally, defendant is stated to be providing repair services and maintenance of the office equipments. It is stated by the plaintiff that it is a matter of common knowledge that photocopiers, fax machines as also computers are part of office equipment. Trade channel for the class of common consumers which purchase the product of the plaintiff and said defendant is the same. It is stated that confusion and deception in the course of trade is inevitable, and that the defendant is clearly in cognate and allied business as that of the plaintiff. Plaintiff states that the adoption of the word INTEL as a part of its corpora
