Back
2024 DHC 7131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, Tara Vitasta Ganju, JJ.
Rasayanam Enterprises - Appellant
Versus
Upakarma Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
FAO(OS)(COMM) 80 of 2024
Decided On : 18-09-2024
Advocates Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Goel, Mr. Aditya Goel, and Mr. Pranjal Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Darpan Wadhwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hemant Daswani, Ms. Saumya Bajpai, Ms. Pranjal, Mr. Amar Vaid, Mr. Kunal Prakash, Ms. Dimita Vyas, Advocates.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against interim injunction order. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. arguments regarding packaging and trademark rights. (Para 8 , 9 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. court's observations on similarity and confusion. (Para 10 , 16 , 17 , 24) |
| 4. criteria for confusion in trademark cases. (Para 18 , 22 , 25) |
| 5. conclusion on appeal dismissal. (Para 27 , 28) |
JUDGMENT :
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.:
1. The present Appeal seeks to challenge an order of interim injunction passed by the learned Single Judge on 22.03.2024 in CS (COMM) 834/2023 titled as ‘Upakarma Ayurveda Private Limited v. Rasayanum Enterprises’ [hereinafter referred to as “the Impugned Order”].
bearing trademark registration no. 4422492 dated 14th August, 2023, w.e.f. 28th January, 2020 in Class 5 – herbal medicines, supplements, cosmetics, etc. [hereinafter referred to as “registered mark”] and copyright in the art work, and other attendant reliefs, by the Appellant, using similar mark named ‘RASAYANAM PURE SHILAJIT’ 
[hereinafter referred to as “restricted mark”]. The Respondent had also prayed for ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the Appellant under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”].3. The learned Single Judge by an ex-parte order dated 21.11.2023 [hereinafter referred to as “21.11.2023 Order”] allowed the Application and restrained the Appellant/Defendant in the following manner:
“18. For the aforesaid reasons, till the next date of hearing, the defendant, as well as all others acting on its behalf, shall stand restrained from manufacturing or marketing any product using the impugned label extracted in para 2 (supra) or any other label which is deceptively similar to the device mark registered in the plaintiffs favour vide Registration No. 4422492 dated 14 August 2023, w.e.f.28 January, 2020.”
3.1 The impugned label marks which were injuncted in the 21.11.2023 Order are extracted below:
4. The Respondent thereafter on 09.01.2024 filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, alleging that the Appellant had violated the 21.11.2023 Order, by continuing trading in the impugned restricted mark.
was allowed and the device mark/logo of the Appellant was registered on 30.01.2024 w.e.f. 31.07.2020, having registration no. 4591737 under ‘AYURVEDIC AUSHEDHI’included in class 5 [hereinafter referred to as “new mark”].5.1 In addition, it was contended that the Appellant had introduced two new packages with respect to their products and that the new packaging was not violative of the registered mark of the Respondent. It was contented that a new packaging was introduced in brown colour for 10 gm product [hereinafter referred to as “10 gm packaging”] and with respect to the 20 gm packaging product [hereinafter referred to as “20 gm packaging”], the packaging had been changed to light green colour. It was thus contended that since the impugned restricted mark was no longer used by the Appellant, the 21.11.2023 Order be vacated. The pictorial depiction of the new packaging is set out below:
6. The Impugned Order decided 3 Applications being IA No. 23080/2023 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC and IA No. 876/2024 under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC both filed by the Respondent and IA No. 24629/2023 under Order XXXIX Rule 4, CPC filed by the Appellant. The following directions were passed:
“35. To summarise the conclusions of this Court:
is not violative of the injunction order g
Trademark infringement and passing off claims are assessed based on overall consumer confusion and not merely by direct comparison of marks.
if there is no infirmity found in the order of the Trial Court, injunction against encashment of bank guarantee and letter of credit should not be granted except where fraud or irretrievable damage i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the adoption of a similar trade dress, including color scheme, with a dishonest intention to infringe a well-known trademark and pass off good....
The court held that trademark and trade dress can attain distinctiveness over time; sudden changes in competitors' branding could constitute passing off if it causes public confusion.
The court emphasized likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark law, holding that similar marks can infringe established trademarks regardless of differences in service or field, thus supporting t....
The court upheld that lack of deceptive similarity precludes claims of trademark infringement and passing off, necessitating proof of goodwill and likelihood of confusion.
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
