Back
ANISH DAYAL
A. O. Smith Corporation – Appellant
Versus
Star Smith Export Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Anish Dayal, J. -
IA, 19011/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC) & I.A. 12253/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC)
1. This judgment disposes of the application filed by defendants under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') being I.A. No.19011/2022, as well as, application filed by plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC being I.A. No.12253/2022.
2. The present suit has been filed by plaintiffs ('A.O. Smith Corporation' and 'A.O. Smith India Water Products Pvt. Ltd.', the US Parent Company and its Indian subsidiary) which claims rights in the mark 'A.O. SMITH'/
3. Plaintiffs claim that they have used the said mark since 1874 internationally and in India since 2006. 'A.O. SMITH' and 'BLUE DIAMOND' are marks used by plaintiffs in respect of geysers, water heaters, purification systems, boilers and other related equipment. Plaintiffs claim that they have huge turnover worldwide, to the tune of 3.5 billion dollars in 2021 and have extensive presence in various Indian cities. The trademarks registered in favor of plaintiffs are claimed to be as under:
4. Grievance was against defendants who had incorporated a company in the name of 'Star Smit
Where a trade mark contains generic or common-to-trade terms, the proprietor cannot claim exclusive rights over those specific words. Comparison of marks for infringement must be done as a whole; if ....
The commercial impression of a composite trademark is created by the mark as a whole, not by its component parts. The word 'PREMIER' was commonly used in conjunction with sporting leagues and had acq....
Suppression of material facts is only relevant if it affects the claim, and the court will consider the overall impression of marks and the plaintiff's prior adoption and registration.
The court ruled that deceptive similarity between competing marks creates a likelihood of consumer confusion and supports injunction against the infringing party.
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.
Intellectual Property - In any case, in view of Section 17(2) (b) of Trademarks Act, plaintiffs cannot register the mark WOOD. It was stressed that under Section 17, where a trade mark consists of se....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
