2023 Supreme(Del) 507

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
Preetendra Singh Aulakh – Appellant
Versus
Green Light Foods Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
CS(COMM) 509/2020
Decided on : 02-05-2023

Mere addition of a house mark, especially when such house mark also has a certain reputation and goodwill, would obviate any chance of confusion in the mind of an unwary consumer.

Headnote:

TRADEMARK - INFRINGEMENT - PASSING OFF - SIMILARITY OF MARKS - SIMILARITY OF GOODS - LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION - PRIOR ADOPTION AND USE - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE - INTERIM INJUNCTION GRANTED.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, a registered proprietor of the trademark 'MONSOON HARVEST FARMS' and the device mark, used for a wide range of agricultural products, sought an interim injunction against the defendant for using the impugned mark 'MONSOON HARVEST'/' for similar products. The defendant claimed prior use of the mark and argued that the goods were different.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiff's mark and the defendant's mark were deceptively similar and that the addition of the word 'WINGREENS' was not sufficient to distinguish them. The court also found that the goods of the plaintiff and the defendant were similar and allied, and that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark.

Issues: 1. Whether the marks in question are deceptively similar? 2. Whether the Rule of Estoppel applies on stand taken before the Registrar of Trade Marks? 3. Whether the goods in question are similar? 4. Whether the exception under Section 34 of the Act applies to the present case? 5. Whether infringement is made out in the present case? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claim of passing off?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The test to be applied in determining whether the marks in question are deceptively similar to each other is that of an unwary purchaser with an average intelligence and imperfect recollection. 2. The principle of estoppel, if it is to apply, shall apply equally to both the parties. 3. The test of determining 'allied/cognate goods or services' is whether the goods/services are related or similar in nature. 4. The exception carved out in Section 34 of the Act would not apply where the goods of the defendant are similar to the ones in which the plaintiff deals in and the defendant is shown to be the prior user of the mark for such goods. 5. For raising a claim of infringement, the registered proprietor has to inter alia show similarity of the registered trade mark and similarity of the goods covered by such registered trade mark with the complained mark used by the other persons and which is likely to cause confusion on the part of the public or which is likely to have an association with the registered trade mark. 6. For the claim of passing off, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant's mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark and that the goods of the plaintiff and the defendant are similar.

Final Decision: The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark.