IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
V Guard Industries Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. - Respondent
CS(COMM) 92 of 2022
Decided On : 12-05-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's trademark rights and history (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. contentions and claims of the plaintiff (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. defendant's counterarguments (Para 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 4. court's examination of trademark distinction (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. assessment of similarity between goods (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. infringement criteria under section 29 (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 7. key elements for section 29(4) claims (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 8. inferences on reputation and non-compliance (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
| 9. passing off and misrepresentation standards (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 10. legal distinctions in passing off cases (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 11. final remarks on the plaintiff's position (Para 61 , 62) |
| 12. conclusion of the judgment (Para 63 , 64 , 65) |
JUDGMENT
Jyoti Singh, J.
I.A. 2220/2022 (under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, by Plaintiff)
1. This order will dispose of Plaintiff's application preferred under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking restraint against the Defendant from using the mark "PEBBLE" for sale of electric irons.
2. It is averred in the plaint that Plaintiff started selling electrical products being stablizers in the year 1977 and soon expanded into variety of other consumer/domestic electrical and electronic apparatus and instruments, parts and fittings thereof, pumps, fans, batteries, electric irons, UPS, inverters, solar water heaters, industrial motors, etc. under its house well-known trademark `V-GUARD' as well as under its other well-known trademarks like PEBBLE, VICTO, INSIGNIA etc. The current turnover is over 2600 Crores. Plaintiff has been selling water heaters under the Trademark V-Gaurd since 1996 and under the trademark/label PEBBLE since 2013. Plaintiff's products are available across India and in several countries across the world including Nepal, Sri Lanka and United Arab Emirates. Plaintiff has 500 distributors, 3,000 direct dealers, more than 20,000 retailers and service centres, spread across 29 States in India.
3. Plaintiff is the proprietor of the trademark/label
which is registered under TM Application No.2503134 in Class 11 since 26.03.2013, for goods being water heaters, electric water heaters, heating coils, electric water geysers, etc. as averred in the plaint. According to the Plaintiff, the word PEBBLE is the essential and prominent part of the Trademark/label
and thus, Plaintiff has the exclusive right qua the said word in respect of any electric good by virtue of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") albeit Plaintiff has filed an application for registration of the trademark PEBBLE (word per se) under No.4984108 in Class 7, for goods namely, ironing machines, ironing presses, electric irons and electric clothes presses etc. on 26.05.2021, to fortify its existing rights. The Trade Marks Registry has objected to the application on the ground that there exists a conflicting mark on the Trade Marks Register and the application is currently pending.
4. It is pleaded by the Plaintiff that the trademark PEBBLE has become a household name across India, synonymous with a wide range of electric products like water heaters, geysers, etc., that has won the trust of consumers on account of their quality, dependability, long durability and true after-sales service, provided through authorized service centres, located throughout India. Plaintiff has also initiated efforts to popularize its products sold under the aforesaid trademark and has expended substantial sums of money on sales promotion, advertisement and publicity. Due to superior quality and high efficacy of its goods under the trademark PEBBLE, continuous and extensive use and large sales, Plaintiff has acquired immense reputation and goodwill in the mark and the goods sold thereunder. Consequently, members of the trade and public exclusively associate the trad


















Trademark infringement occurs when a defendant's mark causes confusion about the source of goods, necessitating protection for well-known marks even across different classes.
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 found that despite phonetic similarity, the distinctiveness of trade marks and differences in intended consumer bases negate the likelihood of confusion and passing off.
The court ruled that deceptive similarity between competing marks creates a likelihood of consumer confusion and supports injunction against the infringing party.
Trademark infringement occurs when a registered mark's rights surpass an unregistered mark's claims, especially when confusion is likely.
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.
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.