Preetendra Singh Aulakh vs Green Light Foods Pvt. Ltd.

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

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

Important Points

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.

Subject

Intellectual Property - TRADEMARK

Act Referred

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : O.39 R.1, O.39 R.2
TRADE MARKS ACT : S.29(1), S.29(2), S.34, S.29(2)(c), S.29(2)(b), S.29

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.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Nancy Roy, Ms. Prakriti Varshney, Ms. Aastha Kakkar, Mr. Prashant & Ms. Ananya Chugh, Mr. Prashant, Ms. Nida Khananan, Advs., Mr. Jayant Mehta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sidhant Goel, Mr. Mohit Goel, Mr. Abhishek Kotnala, Mr. Karmanya Dev Sharma & Mr. P.D.V. Srikar, Advs.

JUDGMENT :

Navin Chawla, J.

I.A.10701/2020

1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CPC’) praying for an ad-interim order of injunction against the defendant restraining it from manufacturing, distributing, exporting, selling, offering for sale, advertising, promoting, displaying, and/or using, in any manner whatsoever the impugned mark ‘MONSOON HARVEST’/’ which the plaintiff alleges is similar to his trade mark ‘MONSOON HARVEST FARMS/either as a trade mark/trade or corporate name/domain name or in any manner whatsoever.

2. At the outset, it is to be noted that during the course of hearing of the application, the defendant stated that it has changed its mark and logo to as under:

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

i) Case of the plaintiff

3. The plaintiff asserts that it is engaged in the business of agriculture and agricultural products through his family since the 1970s, with the plaintiff entering the business of organic farming in the year 2002.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff adopted and started using the mark ‘MONSOON HARVEST FARMS’ and the device mark on 1.11.2006, for a wide range of agricultural products such as rice, fruits, jaggery, pulses, oils, spices, seeds, grains, pickles, flour and allied products. It is stated that the plaintiff's products are high quality products and are certified as organic under the United States Department of Agriculture (in short, ‘USDA’) as well as under the National Programme for Organic Production (in short, ‘the NPOP’) standards. The plaintiff's products are also certified by ‘SGS India Pvt. Ltd.’ and ‘Ecocert India Pvt. Ltd.’ for production of organic products. The plaintiff grows, harvests, and packages its products at its own farm in Punjab and distributes and markets its products across the country with major sales in Punjab and Delhi NCR.

5. The plaintiff has obtained the following registrations of its trade marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’):—

Trade Mark	Cls.	Regn. No.	Date of Regn.	User date
MONSOON HARVEST FARMS	29	3688135	27/11/2017	01/11/2006
Goods : Edible Oil
	29	3688134	27/11/2017	01/11/2006
Goods : Edible Oil
	30	3688137	27/11/2017	01/11/2006
Goods: Raw and unprocessed agricultural, horticultural products; raw and unprocessed grains and seeds; fresh fruit and vegetables and fresh herbs.
MONSOON HARVEST FARMS	31	3688136	27/11/2017	01/11/2006
Goods: Raw and unprocessed agricultural, horticultural products; raw and unprocessed grains and seeds; fresh fruit and vegetables and fresh herbs.

6. The plaintiff has also applied for registration of its following marks, which are pending consideration with the Registrar of Trade Marks:—

Trade Mark	Cls.	Appln. No.	Date of Appln.	User date
MONSOON HARVEST FARMS	30	3688133	27/11/2017	01/11/2006
Goods: Rice, Flour and Preparations made from cereals; Sugar, mustard
	30	3688132	27/11/2017	01/11/2006
Goods: organic food, processed and raw and other under this class.

7. The plaintiff gives its sales figures in paragraph 17 of the plaint. The plaintiff states that it has also spent considerable sums of money on the promotion of the said trade marks. The plaintiff has launched a website by the name of www.monsoonharvestfarms.com. It also has a Facebook page under the name ‘Monsoon Harvest Farms’, created on 29.01.2013, with 15341 followers as on date of filing of the present suit and is also a part of the Facebook Marketplace under its trade marks. It also has a handle on the social media application-Instragram under the mark/name ‘monsoonharvestfarms’. The plaintiff claims that it also promotes its business through Go