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

2023 Supreme(Del) 4666

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Jaquar Company Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Villeroy Boch Ag & Anr. – Respondents
CS(COMM) 777 of 2022
Decided On : 04-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, Ms. Surya Rajappan, Ms. Tejasvini Puri and Ms. Vasanthi Hariharan, Advocates, for the Plaintiff.
Mr. Uttam Datt, Mr. Dinesh Jotwani, Mr. Harpreet Oberoi, Mr. Jitesh P. Gupta, Ms. Sonakshi Singh, Mr. Kumar Bhaskar, Mr. Rishi Raj Sharma and Mr. Aman Sanjeev, Advocates, for the Defendants.

The main legal point established is the protection of inherently distinctive trademarks and the likelihood of confusion as a basis for granting injunctive relief.

Headnote:

Trademark tussle: Artize v. Artis - Trademarks Act, 1999, Section 29(1)

Fact of the Case:

This suit involves a clash between two well-established brands in the sanitary ware industry, Jaquar and Villeroy, over the trademarks 'ARTIZE' and 'ARTIS'. Jaquar claims extensive use and registration of the 'ARTIZE' mark, while Villeroy argues that 'ARTIS' is not deceptively similar and is used as a sub-brand in conjunction with their house mark. Jaquar filed for an interim injunction to restrain Villeroy from using the 'ARTIS' mark.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that 'ARTIZE' and 'ARTIS' exhibit visual, phonetic, and structural similarities and are associated with identical goods, leading to a likelihood of confusion. Jaquar's statutory rights over 'ARTIZE' were upheld, and Villeroy's defences of estoppel, delay, and acquiescence were rejected. The Court granted an interim injunction restraining Villeroy from using the 'ARTIS' mark.

Issues: 1. Whether the 'ARTIS' mark is deceptively similar to and infringing the 'ARTIZE' mark. 2. Whether 'ARTIZE' is descriptive of the goods, disentitling Jaquar from restraining the use of 'ARTIS' by Villeroy. 3. Whether Jaquar is entitled to an injunctive relief against the use of 'ARTIS' by Villeroy.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that 'ARTIZE' is inherently distinctive and entitled to protection, while 'ARTIS' was used in a trademark sense and likely to cause confusion. Jaquar's delay in filing the suit did not amount to acquiescence, and the balance of convenience favored granting an injunction to Jaquar.

Final Decision: The Court granted an interim injunction restraining Villeroy from using the 'ARTIS' mark during the pendency of the suit.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)

I.A. 18241/2022 (for grant of interim injunction)

Trademark tussle: Artize v. Artis - who owns the artistic touch?

1. This suit relates to the clash between sanitary ware giants over their brand names. The Plaintiff, M/s Jaquar & Company Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter, "Jaquar"] and the Defendants, Villeroy & Boch AG and Villeroy & Boch Sales India Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter collectively, "Villeroy"] are two well- established brands in the business of sanitary ware and bathroom fitting products. They are at loggerheads over the words "ARTIZE" used by Jaquar, and "ARTIS" used by Villeroy, both derivatives of the word "ART". Jaquar asserts that they coined and adopted the fanciful trademark "ARTIZE" in 2008 and since then, have been continuously and uninterruptedly using the same for their luxury segment of sanitary ware. Villeroy, on the other hand, contests Jaquar's proprietary claims, contending that "ARTIS" is a Latin term which means art, and thus, "ARTIZE" is nothing but a derivative of "ARTIS" and is purely descriptive, whereon no monopoly can be claimed. Furthermore, they argue that "ARTIS" is a sub- brand/range/collection used in conjunction with their well-known brand name Villeroy & Boch and therefore, such use does not amount to infringement or passing off Jaquar's trademark.

THE CASE SET UP BY JAQUAR

2. Mr. Kapil Wadhwa, counsel for Jaquar, presents the following arguments:

2.1. Jaquar is a market leader in the manufacturing and sale of diversified bathing solutions such as showers, faucets, bath tubs, spas, steam cabins, water heaters etc. It caters to various segments of the industry and customers under two ranges - "ESSCO" for the value products and "ARTIZE" for the luxury products. The trademark "ARTIZE" has garnered substantial reputation and goodwill on account of continuous and long use. Jaquar has spent considerably towards advertisement and promotion of their brand, including "ARTIZE". Thus, by virtue of extensive use for over last fourteen years, the trademark "ARTIZE" has come to be associated solely and exclusively with Jaquar.

2.2. Products under "ARTIZE" mark are sold extensively across the country, in over three hundred showrooms and the mark has gained popularity in India. Jaquar has also obtained trademark registrations for formative versions of the "ARTIZE" mark in classes 11 and 35, particulars whereof are as follows:

S. No.TrademarkApplication No.ClassDate of applicationStatus
1. [IMG]17361921124.09.2008Registered
2. [IMG]20030721103.08.2010Registered
3. [IMG]21652921124.06.2011Registered
4. [IMG]48799361125.02.2021Registered
5. [IMG]48799373525.02.2021Registered
6.ARTIZE -BORN from art48799381125.02.2021Registered
7. [IMG]52509661117.12.2021Registered

2.3. In November, 2021, Jaquar became aware of Villeroy's launch of identical product range under the impugned mark "ARTIS" through an article on the website of Architectural Digest (India). Parties are market competitors and Villeroy is well-conversant with Jaquar's "ARTIZE" products that are sold side-by-side at multiple outlets.

2.4. Upon knowledge of the infringing activities, Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 26th November, 2021 to Defendant No. 2 [Indian subsidiary of Villeroy & Boch AG] calling upon them to cease and desist operations under the "ARTIS" mark, however, no response was received thereto. A follow-up legal notice was then issued on 15th June, 2022, to which, Villeroy replied that the two contesting marks are not similar and that the use of the brand name alongwith the impugned mark is a sufficient distinguishing factor, which avoids public confusion. This claim is completely misconceived as "ARTIZE" and "ARTIS" are virtually identical and deceptively similar.

2.5. "ARTIZE is an essential feature of Jaquar's trademark registrations and subsequent adoption of a deceptively similar mark by Villeroy for identical goods amounts to infringement of Jaquar's well-known "ARTIZE" mark under Section 29(1) of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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