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
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. | Trademark | Application No. | Class | Date of application | Status |
| 1. | [IMG] | 1736192 | 11 | 24.09.2008 | Registered |
| 2. | [IMG] | 2003072 | 11 | 03.08.2010 | Registered |
| 3. | [IMG] | 2165292 | 11 | 24.06.2011 | Registered |
| 4. | [IMG] | 4879936 | 11 | 25.02.2021 | Registered |
| 5. | [IMG] | 4879937 | 35 | 25.02.2021 | Registered |
| 6. | ARTIZE -BORN from art | 4879938 | 11 | 25.02.2021 | Registered |
| 7. | [IMG] | 5250966 | 11 | 17.12.2021 | Registered |
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
AI
The main legal point established is the protection of inherently distinctive trademarks and the likelihood of confusion as a basis for granting injunctive relief.
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
Generic and descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be exclusively claimed, and likelihood of confusion must be assessed holistically from the average consumer's perspective.
Court held that common descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be claimed exclusively and must be assessed as a whole, dismissing claims of deceptive similarity.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the dissimilarity of goods, the plaintiff's inaction amounting to acquiescence, and the lack of evidence to establish the plaintiff's reput....
The principle of prior user of a trademark prevails over subsequent registrations, especially when confusion or association is likely between goods and services of similar trade sectors.
The court held that registration of trademarks does not grant exclusive rights over a common or partially generic term, emphasizing the need for distinctiveness to prevent confusion.
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.