IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Subway LP LLP – Appellant
Versus
Infinity Food – Respondent
CS(COMM) 843 of 2022
Decided On : 12-01-2023
ORDER (Oral) I.A. 20529/2022 - Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC - Trade Marks Act - Section 36F(1) - Section 29(1) to (5) - Section 17(2) - Infringement of registered trade marks - Anti-dissection rule - Dominant mark - Passing off - Similarity in layout of restaurants
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, Subway IP LLC, a well-known global chain of restaurants, alleged that the defendants infringed its intellectual property rights by using similar brand names, logos, and other elements. The defendants offered to make changes, but the plaintiff was not satisfied.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants' modifications addressed the alleged infringement, and the plaintiff's exclusivity claims over certain elements were not sustainable. The court also concluded that no passing off was established.
Issues: The issues involved infringement of registered trade marks, application of the anti-dissection rule, identification of dominant marks, and passing off.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the anti-dissection rule and found that the defendants' modifications eliminated the alleged infringement. It also emphasized that no exclusivity could be claimed over common elements and that passing off required trial and evidence of confusion.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the prayer for interim injunction, subject to the defendants carrying out the stated changes and undertaking not to use the allegedly infringing marks.
ORDER (Oral)
I.A. 20529/2022 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC)
1. This judgement provides the reasons for the order in this case, which was pronounced on 9th January 2023.
2. The plaintiff Subway IP LLC is a Company incorporated in the State of Delaware, U.S., which operates a well-known global chain of restaurants under the name `SUBWAY', with the name being represented with the well-known logos [IMG] and [IMG]. The plaintiff is the properietor, in India, of registrations not only of the `SUBWAY' word and device marks, but also of `SUBWAY CLUB' and `VEGGIE DELITE', being the names allotted by the plaintiff to its club sandwich and vegetable sandwich respetively. The plaintiff holds the following trade mark registrations in India:
| S. No. | Trade Mark | Registration No. | Class | Date of application | Valid till |
| 1 SUBWAY | 513704 | 30 | 20th July 1989 | 7th April 2025 | |
| 2 | SUBWAY | 513705 | 32 | 20th July 1989 | 7th April 2023 |
| 3 | [IMG] | 1347782 | 42 | 30th March 2005 | 30th March 2025 |
| 4 | SUBWAY | 1349577 | 42 | 7th April 2005 | 7th April 2025 |
| 5 | SUBWAY | 1933097 | 29 | 9th March 2010 | 9th March 2030, |
| 6 | [IMG] | IRDI-3597627 | 29, 30, 32, 35, 43 | 13th January 2017 | 13th January 20271[*Rights protected under the Madrid Protocol read with Section 36F(1) of the Trade Marks Act: "36-F. Effects of international registration. - (1) From the date of the international registration of a trade mark where India has been designated or the date of the recording in the register of the International Bureau about the extension of the protection resulting from an international registration of a trade mark to Indiathe protection of the trade mark in India shall be the same as if the trade mark had been registered in India.] , |
| 7 | [IMG] | IRDI- 3642913 | 29, 30, 32, 35, 43 | 13th January 2017 | 13th January 2027*, |
| 8 | [IMG] | IRDI- 3649570 | 29, 30, 32, 35 | 13th January 2017 | 13th January 2027* |
| 9 | SUBWAY CLUB | 5249508 | 29, 30 | 16th December 2021 | 16th December 2031 |
| 10 | VEGGIE DELITE | 1750661 | 29, 30 | 4th November 2008 | 4th November 2028 |
3. Copies of the registrations have been placed on record. The defendant does not dispute the proprietorship, by the plaintiff, of the aforesaid registered trade marks.
4. The plaintiff, therefore, asserts exclusivity over the word and device marks SUBWAY, [IMG], VEGGIE DELITE and SUBWAY CLUB.
5. Defendant 1 Infinity Foods LLP is a partnership firm of which Defendants 3 and 4 are partners. Defendants 3 and 4 are licensees of the plaintiff, to whom the plaintiff has granted the right to franchise the plaintiff`s outlets vide agreement dated 30th May 2019. Since then, Defendants 3 and 4 have, through the outlets owned by them, been serving and distributing the products of the plaintiff. Recitals A and B in the franchise agreement dated 30th May 2019, on which Mr Sethi learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff places reliance, read as under:
`A' Subway IP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with a principal office in Doral, Florida, USA ('SIP') owns a proprietary system for establishing and operating restaurants featuring sandwiches, pizza and salads under the trade name and service mark Subway* (the "System"). The system was developed spending considerable money, time, and effort. The System includes the trademark Subway*, other trademarks, trade names, service marks, commercial announcements (slogans) and related insignia (logos) SIP name [the 'Marks']. The System also includes confidential information and goodwill. The parties acknowledge that SIP owns the Marks registered with the India Trade Mark Registry, including the trademark "Subway" in international classes 30 and 32 on July 20, 1989 under registration numbers 513704 and 513705, respectively; 'Subway & Design' in class 42 on March 27, 2007 under registration number 1347782; 'Subway' in international class 42 on August 7, 2008 under registration number 1349577; and "VEGGIE DELITE" in classes 29 and 30 on May 18, 2015 under registration number 1750661.
B. SIP granted a non-exclusive license to Subway International B.V., a Netherlands limited liability company ('Licensor') to
The main legal point established is that the application of the anti-dissection rule and the identification of dominant marks are crucial in determining infringement of registered trade marks.
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.
Generic and descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be exclusively claimed, and likelihood of confusion must be assessed holistically from the average consumer's perspective.
The court held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of infringement and granted an ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark NOVAEGIS or [IMG] in any form or m....
The court emphasized likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark law, holding that similar marks can infringe established trademarks regardless of differences in service or field, thus supporting t....
Distinctiveness in trademark law must be assessed concerning the goods or services; common terms can acquire distinctiveness based on usage, thus allowing for a prima facie case of infringement.
On a plain reading of Section 15(1), it is evident that where a proprietor of a trade mark claims to be entitled to exclusive use of any part thereof separately, he is permitted to apply to register ....
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.