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

2022 Supreme(Del) 2172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Exide Industries Limited - Plaintiff
Versus
Krishna International & Ors. – Defendants
CS(COMM) 367 Of 2020 & I.As. 7801 Of 2020, 1017 Of 2021, 2402 Of 2021, 4794 Of 2022
Decided On : 29-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Plaintiff : Ms. Suhrita Mazumdar, Mr. Afzal B. Khan, Mr. Vishal Nagpal.
For the Defendants : Mr. Saurabh Kumar Tuteja.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the infringement of a registered trademark under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the entitlement to a permanent injunction and damages for the violation of statutory and common law rights.

Headnote:

EXIDE - Trademark Infringement - Trademarks Act, 1999 Act, Section 2(1)(zg), Section 39 - The court discussed the Plaintiff's rights in the mark 'EXIDE' under the Trademarks Act, 1999, and the infringement of the mark by the Defendants. The court highlighted the Plaintiff's well-known mark status and the extensive use of the mark in the Indian market. The judgment emphasized the violation of the Plaintiff's statutory and common law rights and the importance of consumer interest in the case.

Fact of the Case:

The Plaintiff, Exide Industries Limited, filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark 'EXIDE', passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, and delivery-up. The Plaintiff claimed rights in the mark 'EXIDE' and alleged that the Defendants were illegally using the mark 'EXIDE' for various products, constituting infringement and passing off.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Defendants had infringed the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'EXIDE' and passed off the mark. The court also noted that the Defendants continued to manufacture and sell the infringing products despite the interim injunction, leading to a large seizure of infringing goods. The court concluded that the Plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction and damages, and the suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff.

Issues: The issues involved the infringement of the Plaintiff's registered trademark 'EXIDE' by the Defendants, passing off, and the seizure of infringing products. The court also addressed the Defendants' claim of ceasing the use of the mark 'EXIDE' and their delay in filing written statements.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the Plaintiff's rights under the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Defendants' continued infringement and passing off, and the large seizure of infringing goods. The court also considered the delay in filing written statements and the Defendants' claim of ceasing the use of the mark 'EXIDE'.

Final Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and damages. The Defendants were directed to pay litigation costs to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was permitted to visit the Defendants' premises to ensure the removal or destruction of the infringing products.

JUDGMENT :

(Prathiba M. Singh, J.)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff-Exide Industries Limited, seeking permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark and trading name ‘EXIDE’, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, delivery-up, etc. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of automotive and industrial batteries and claims rights in the mark ‘EXIDE’ which is used in respect of lead acid storage batteries ranging from 2.5 Ah to 20,200 Ah capacity covering the broadest spectrum of applications. The Plaintiff is also stated to be manufacturing high-end batteries for submarines and for other security related machinery as well. It has various subsidiaries in India and abroad, including in the United Kingdom, Singapore and Sri Lanka. The Plaintiff s presence in the Indian market with the trademark 'EXIDE' is tangible, widespread, continuous and uninterrupted, especially in view of the fact that the Plaintiff has more than 1750+Exide Care centres offering servicing of batteries, and 48,000+ direct and indirect outlets, for sale of products.

3. The Plaintiff is the proprietor of several registered trademarks comprising the expression ‘EXIDE’, including the first registration of the trademark ‘EXIDE’ in India bearing registration No.694 dated 8th June, 1942 in Class-9. The Plaintiff is also the registered proprietor of the mark ‘EXIDE’ in Class 25, 11, 99, amongst others. The sales of the Plaintiff were more than Rs.10,000/- crores in the year 2018-2019. The Plaintiffs corporate name is also ‘Exide Industries Limited’. The Plaintiff avers that the mark ‘EXIDE’ has become a well-known mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 Act.

4. The Plaintiff’s case against the Defendants is that the Defendants are engaged in manufacture and sale of various products including the automotive products under the brand name ‘EXIDE’, which is also used as part of the trading style of the Defendants. The records from the Trademark Registry also reveal that the trademark was applied for by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tuteja, trading as Defendant No.1-Krishna International. The records from the GST portal are also relied upon to argue that the Defendants are illegally using the mark ‘EXIDE’. The Linkedin profile of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tuteja also claims association with the Defendant No.2- M/s. Narula & Company, which is also using the mark ‘EXIDE’ for its batteries. Defendant No.3-Rajesh Led & Phone Network Booster Accessories, is also, admittedly, an entity of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tuteja.

5. The Plaintiff submits that the listings for the Defendants’ products were found on www.indiamart.com. Upon discovering the same, the Plaintiff conducted inquiries and it was revealed that Defendant No.1 was marketing the infringing products in packaging which are primarily available in two variants- ‘Naveen Exide Power’ and ‘Made in Exide Power’. The ‘X’ in the ‘EXIDE Power’ logo was also similar to the trademark ‘EXIDE’ used by the Plaintiff. Further investigation also revealed that Defendants were manufacturing a large variety of products like Conceal lights, LED Panel Lights, LED COB Lights bearing the mark ‘EXIDE’. All these products use the mark ‘EXIDE’ blatantly in a prominent form. The Defendants also have various promotional materials bearing the mark ‘EXIDE’, which has been circulated in the market. The Plaintiff, in fact, effected a purchase of the infringing products bearing the mark ‘EXIDE’ sold by the Defendants, but no cash memo was issued.

6. According to the Plaintiff, the use of the mark ‘EXIDE’ and ‘EXIDE POWER’ is completely illegal. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Tuteja, the sole proprietor of Defendant No.1-Krishna International, has also applied for trademark registration of the mark ‘EXIDE’ in a logo form represented

          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