The court affirmed the plaintiff's rights to the trademark 'DREAMS LINGERIE' as a well-known mark, rejecting the defendant's claim of non-similarity due to their prior distributor relationship.

Headnote:(A) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 2(1)(zg) - The plaintiff claimed ownership of the mark 'DREAMS LINGERIE', established as a well-known trademark due to extensive use since 2003. The defendant’s mark 'DREAM COMFORT' was deemed deceptively similar, intending to exploit the plaintiff's goodwill. (Paras 4, 27, 36)

(B) Injunctions - The court upheld the ad-interim injunction against the defendant for using a similar mark, emphasizing that the prior relationship as distributor influenced the determination of mala fide intentions. (Paras 37)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sells undergarments/lingerie under the trademark 'DREAMS' since 2006, claiming the mark as well-known, while the defendant adopted a similar mark after being a distributor.

Findings of Court:
The defendant's application to vacate the injunction was dismissed, confirming the plaintiff's claim of trademark rights.

Issues: The court addressed whether the defendant's mark was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's and the implications of the historical partnership.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the 'average intelligence' test for likelihood of confusion in trademarks, affirming the necessity to protect established trademarks from dilution and confusion.

Result: The ad-interim injunction is confirmed; the defendant's application is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff claims well-known trademark status. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. defendant argues against deceptive similarity. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. plaintiff highlights partner's non-interest in trademark. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. plaintiff refutes defendant's claims based on prior business. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
5. court rejects defendant's request to vacate injunction. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
6. court emphasizes the importance of overall impression in trademark cases. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)
7. court concludes marks are deceptively similar, rightfully favoring plaintiff. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
8. court confirms injunction and concludes the order. (Para 37 , 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT

I.A. 8665/2022 & 11026/2022

1. By this order, this Court shall be disposing of the above two applications; the first filed by the plaintiff, being IA No. 8665 of 2022, under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, `the CPC'); the second filed by the defendant, being IA No. 11026 of 2022, under Order XXXIX Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark `DREAMS LINGERIE' which was adopted by it in the year 2003 with respect to the undergarments/lingerie in Class 25' It claims to be selling and marketing its products under the trade mark `DREAMS' since the year 2006. The details of the registrations and the pending applications for the mark `DREAMS' or bearing the formative' mark `DREAMS' are given by the plaintiff in paragraph 5 of the plaint, detailed as under:

S.NO.	Application Number with User Details	Trademark with Type	Dt. Of App.	Status	Image and Disclaimer (if any)
1.	1218380 Proposed to be used.		28/07/2003	Registered	Trademark Journal is Not available on the website of the Trademark Office. Legal proceedings Certificate Applied
2.	1921771 01/07/2009		12/02/2010	Registered	Disclaimer to the word dreams and device of stars.
3.	3620406 Proposed to be used.		25/08/2017	Registered	No disclaimer
4.	3620407 Proposed to be used.		25/08/2017	Opposed	No disclaimer

3. The plaintiff also gives the figures of turnover with respect to goods sold under the trade mark `DREAMS' in paragraph 9 of the plaint, reproduced as under:

YEAR	TURNOVER IN INR
2008	1,97,81,893
2009	2,92,99,416
2010	2,16,80,956.20
2011	6,31,40,295.53
2012	6,13,01,917.21
2013	7,85,83,866.99
2014	10,39,91,776.51
2015	12,34,64,864.69
2016	14,64,21,492.30
2017	16,33,35,761.33
2018	20,09,93,626.36
2019	22,89,82,118.77
2020	24,03,51,970.75
2021	26,41,30,536.44
2022	39,81,64,887.10
TOTAL	214,36,25,379.38

4. The plaintiff claims that the long use of the mark `DREAMS' by the plaintiff, entitles it to be declared as a `well-known trade mark' in terms of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in short, `the Act').

5. The plaintiff further claims that the defendant who was the erstwhile distributor of the plaintiff-firm for the territory of Ghaziabad and Western Uttar Pradesh during the period of 2018 to 31.01.2022, has adopted a deceptively similar mark, being `DREAM COMFORT', for the identical goods' The defendant has also applied for registration of its mark on 10.03.2022 under the application no. 5364877 in Class 25 on a `proposed to be used' basis.

6. It is further claimed that the father of the defendant, Mr. Ajay Kumar, was employed as a manager with the plaintiff-firm from the year 2006 to December 2021. It is claimed that the defendant, in his capacity of being a distributor of the plaintiff-firm, and his father, being the manager of the plaintiff-firm, had full access to the dealer network, vendors, trade channels, internal business details, product supply chain, price points, product demands, product details et cetera and, therefore, the adoption of a deceptively similar mark is clearly mala fide and intended to draw a connection with the plaintiff and to ride on its reputation. 7. It is asserted by the plaintif