IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
New Balance Athletics Inc. – Appellant
Versus
New Balance Immigration Private Limited – Respondent
CS(COMM) 444 of 2022
Decided On : 01-06-2023
NEW BALANCE - Trademark Infringement - CPC 151, O-IX R-7, O-XI R-1(5), O-XIII-A R-3 & 6(1)(a), O- XXXIX R-2A - The court discussed the application filed under Section 151 read with Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the trademarks of the plaintiff. The court also allowed the plaintiff's application under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act to place on record additional documents. The judgment highlighted the infringement of the plaintiff's trademarks by the defendant, the failure of the defendant to comply with the interim injunction order, and the defendant's dishonest adoption of deceptively similar marks to the plaintiff's registered marks.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing its trademarks. The defendant failed to comply with the interim injunction order and adopted deceptively similar marks to the plaintiff's registered marks.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's actions amounted to infringement of the plaintiff's trademarks and passing off its services as that of the plaintiff's. The defendant's adoption of deceptively similar marks was deemed dishonest.
Issues: Trademark infringement, passing off, non-compliance with interim injunction order, dishonest adoption of marks
Ratio Decidendi: The defendant's use of deceptively similar marks and failure to comply with the interim injunction order constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The defendant's adoption of the marks was deemed dishonest.
Final Decision: The court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, granting a permanent injunction and imposing costs of Rs.4,00,000 on the defendant.
JUDGMENT
Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)
I.A. 9041/2023 (u/S 151 of the CPC r/w O-IX R-7 of the CPC)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the defendant under Section 151 read with Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
2. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the defendant and hence, the defendant was proceeded against ex parte on 15th September, 2022. Thereafter, on 12th October, 2022 the application for interim injunction filed on behalf of the plaintiff, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was allowed and an ex parte judgment was passed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendant from using the marks `NEW BALANCE' and `NB' in any manner including in relation to advertising of services or use as the defendant's corporate name, corporate logo or domain name.
3. Counsel for the defendant submits that the defendant could not appear on the hearing on 15th September, 2022 and 12th October, 2022 due to personal exigencies as he was occupied with the medical treatment of his uncle, who was suffering from cancer and who expired on 15th October, 2022. Subsequently, counsel appeared on behalf of the defendant on 23rd January, 2023. On 8th May, 2023, the present application was filed on behalf of the defendant.
4. Counsel for the plaintiff does not seriously contest the present application.
5. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the defendant is permitted to participate in the suit from the date it entered appearance i.e., 23rd January, 2023.
6. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 2807/2023 (O-XI R-1(5) of the Commercial Courts Act)
7. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking to place on record additional documents.
8. Sometime in February, 2023, the plaintiff came to know that defendant is continuing to use the impugned marks as a part of its corporate name, corporate logo as well as domain name.
9. Accordingly, the present application was filed to place on record material to show the user of the impugned marks by the defendant even after passing of injunction order dated 12th October, 2022.
10. No reply has been filed on behalf of the defendant to the present application.
11. For the reasons stated, the application is allowed and the aforesaid documents are taken on record.
I.A. 1264/2023 (O-XIII-A R-3 & 6(1)(a) of the CPC), I.A. 1336/2023 (O- XXXIX R-2A of CPC) & CS(COMM) 444/2022
12. The present suit has been filed seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the trademarks of the plaintiff, passing off its goods and services as that of the plaintiff's and other ancillary reliefs.
PLEADINGS IN THE PLAINT
13. The case set up by the plaintiffs in the plaint is as follows:
13.1. The plaintiff company incorporated under the laws of USA, is engaged in the designing, manufacturing, marketing and sales of footwear, readymade clothing in about 120 countries including India
13.2. The plaintiff first used the `NEW BALANCE' mark as part of its corporate name in 1906 in the United States of America and since then, the `NEW BALANCE' mark has been used as part of the plaintiff's corporate name and the corporate names of the plaintiff's companies around the world.
13.3. The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of `NEW BALANCE', `NB', the `NB' device mark and other marks that incorporate the NEW BALANCE and NB marks around the world including India. The use of the mark `NEW BALANCE' began in India in 1986.
13.4. Pursuant to a franchise agreement in the year 2016, the plaintiff authorised an Indian party to operate retail stores throughout India. The plaintiff's products are being sold through various e-commerce platforms such as amazon.in, myntra.in, etc. Additionally the plaintiff has its presence on various social media platforms.
13.5. The plaintiff owns various valid and subsisting registrations in India in respect of its `NEW BALANCE' marks in Class 25 and other classes, details of which are g
Trademark infringement and passing off can be established based on the use of deceptively similar marks and failure to comply with interim injunction orders.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks, the likelihood of confusion or deception arising from the similarity of marks, and the prima facie case of infringeme....
The court established that the rights of the prior user of a trademark are superior to those of a subsequent user, emphasizing the elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage in passing off c....
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
Trademark infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act was established based on the likelihood of confusion among consumers due to the defendants' use of a mark similar to the plaintiff....
Trademark infringement and passing off established due to defendants' sale of counterfeit products, leading to a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's rights as the registered proprietor of a well-known trademark were upheld, and the court applied the principles of trademark law to establish infringement and passing off by the defen....
The court affirmed the plaintiffs' rights against infringement and passing off, validating their trademarks through established goodwill and allowing for summary judgment due to the defendant's non-a....
Trademark infringement occurs when a defendant uses a well-known mark in bad faith, causing confusion, irrespective of the addition of non-distinctive terms. The plaintiff is entitled to injunction b....
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.