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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Asha Menon, J.
HTC Corporation - Appellant
Versus
LV Degao - Respondent
CS(COMM) 263 of 2020
Decided On : 06-04-2022




The plaintiff can establish passing off and infringement under the Trade Marks Act even without direct market presence, provided it demonstrates sufficient reputation and links to its brand.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 29(2), 29(4), 124(5) - Infringement of trade mark - Plaintiff sought interim injunction against defendants for using identical trade mark in relation to unrelated goods—Court found that while both parties had registered trade marks, plaintiff established a prima facie claim of passing off and dishonesty in adoption of the trade mark—Defendants' actions linked their products to that of the plaintiff's brand, causing potential confusion—Interim injunction granted till the resolution of rectification proceedings. (Paras 57-59)

(B) Trade Marks - Reputation and distinctiveness - It is not necessary for the plaintiff to have products present in the market to prove reputation under Section 29(4) if the name has gained due prominence globally. (Paras 49-56)

(C) Practice and Procedure - Section 124(1)(i) mandates staying an infringement suit pending the outcome of cancellation proceedings, yet the court can still issue interim relief under Section 124(5). (Paras 33-36)

Table of Content
1. application for interim injunction by plaintiff. (Para 1)
2. background on the plaintiff's trademark history. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
3. details on the defendant's trademark use and history. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. plaintiff's argument for trademark infringement. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
5. supporting case law for the plaintiff's argument. (Para 15)
6. defendant's counterarguments regarding trademark distinctions. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
7. discussion on legal standards for trademark reputation. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
8. arguments surrounding passing off and goodwill. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
9. plaintiff's rebuttal against defendant's claims. (Para 30 , 31)
10. need for interim relief. (Para 32)
11. overview of the case's proceedings and jurisdiction. (Para 33 , 34)
12. legal standards for prosecceding with interim injunction. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
13. analysis of the balance of convenience in granting relief. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
14. plaintiff's trademark distinctiveness and its implications. (Para 43 , 44 , 45)
15. conclusion on trademark reputation and infringement. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
16. final judgment on the case and injunction. (Para 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)

ORDER

I.A. 5795/2020 (by the plaintiff u/O XXXIX R-l & 2 CPC for interim injunction)

1. This order will dispose of the application [I.A.5795/2020] under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC") filed by the plaintiff along with the suit for declaration, permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, dilution, unfair competition, rendition of accounts/damages, delivery up etc.

2. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the laws of Taiwan and claims to be a leading manufacturer of consumer electronic items, such as, smartphones, mobile phones, personal digital assistant (PDA) devices, virtual reality head-mounted displays, etc. The plaintiff was initially incorporated in the year 1997 as `High Tech Computer Corporation', but gained popularity quickly as "HTC" and has been known as such since 1998. The plaintiff also used these alphabets for the first time in 1998 in relation to its product i.e., a phone named "HTC Kangaroo". In 2008, the plaintiff formally changed its name to "HTC Corporation" reflecting the growing popularity of the "HTC" brand.

3. The plaintiff got the Trade Mark registered in India in Class-9 on 12th May, 2006, vide Registration No.1451016 which was valid till 12th May, 2026. It has been doing business in India using the said Trade Mark since 2007, though it had begun using it internationally since 2006. In 2008, the plaintiff also launched the first ever Android-based mobile phone under the trade mark /HTC Dream in India. It applied for and was granted registration of the Trade Mark on 24th January, 2008 vide Registration No.1645578 in Class-9 in India. On 24th November, 2011, the plaintiff applied for and was granted registration of its Trade Mark in Class 9 in India. On 7th March, 2014, the plaintiff obtained international registration for the Trade Mark in China in Class 9 vide Registration No.6481646 and on 21st March, 2015, in Class 8 vide Registration No.12262154.

4. The details of the registration in more than 90 jurisdictions across the world have been listed in para No.8 of the plaint, and in India, in para No.9 of the plaint, which are reproduced as under: -

TRADE MARK REGISTRATIONS - INTERNATIONAL

Sl. No.Trade MarkRegistration No.Registration DateClassCountry
1.122058323/1/20089Australia
2.82956971528/1/20089Brazil
3.65409754/12/20089European Union
4.522635224/4/20099Japan
5.122621521/3/20158China
6.80209037/3/20149China
7.363616409/06/20099United States of America
8.39355212/11/20099Russia
9.T0800791B23/1/20089Singapore
10.1061879/2/20119United Arab Emirates
11.57198022/1/20089Switzerland
12.6091428/8/20099OAPI (African Intellectual Property Organization)
13.40-084619213/12/20109Korea
14.800130227/12/20079Malaysia
15.1429003824/7/200
















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