2013 Supreme(Mad) 1167
High Court of Judicature at Madras
VINOD K. SHARMA, J.
Petitioner
Versus
Respondent
O.A. No. 835 to 837 of 2012 in C.S. No. 649 of 2012
Decided on: 01-03-2013
Headnote:
TRADEMARK - Infringement - Trade Marks Act, 1958, Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Class 5, Class 42 - The court discussed the infringement of the registered trademark 'SOUKYA' under registration Nos. 904710 & 1419160 in class 5 and 42 respectively, and the defendant's use of the deceptively similar trademark 'SOWKHYA WAY2HEALTH' for similar services. The court found that the defendant's use of the similar trademark was deliberate and constituted infringement, leading to the grant of interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs, holders of the registered trademark 'SOUKYA', filed a suit against the defendant for infringement and passing off of their services and business. The plaintiffs sought permanent injunction, damages, and transfer of domain name from the defendant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's use of the deceptively similar trademark 'SOWKHYA WAY2HEALTH' for similar services constituted infringement and misrepresentation, leading to the grant of interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Issues: The main issues were the infringement of the registered trademark 'SOUKYA' by the defendant's use of the deceptively similar trademark 'SOWKHYA WAY2HEALTH' and the misrepresentation of services, leading to damages to the plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's use of the deceptively similar trademark for similar services constituted infringement and misrepresentation, leading to the grant of interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Final Decision: The court granted interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the defendant's use of the deceptively similar trademark 'SOWKHYA WAY2HEALTH' for similar services constituted infringement and misrepresentation.
1. The applicant No.1 is the Power of Attorney holder of Dr. Issac Mathai, the applicant No.1/plaintiff and director of Soukya Indain Holistic Centre Private Limited, the applicant No.2/plaintiff, a company registered under the Companies Act.
2. The plaintiffs/applicants have filed a suit for declaration that the defendant or any person drawing title through them are not entitled to infringe or attempt to infringe and pass off their services and business of the respondent/defendant by the use in connection therewith the trademark/trade name/domain name 'SOWKHYA' or any manner whatsoever, in respect of services i.e. medicinal and beauty treatments similar to "SOUKYA".
3. Consequential relief sought for is permanent injunction restraining the defendant or anybody drawing title through him from infringing the applicant/plaintiffs' registered trademark "SOUKYA" under registration Nos.904710 & 1419160 in class 5 and 42 respectively of the applicants/plaintiffs by manufacturing, use, advertisement, sale, offering for sale, exposing for sale of the trademark "SOWKHYA" or any other deceptively similar mark to "SOUKYA" with respect to services relating to medicinal and beauty treatments.
4. Permanent injunction is also sought for restraining the defendant from passing of their services as that of the applicants/ plaintiffs by using the mark "SOWKHYA" or the applicants/plaintiffs mark "SOUKYA" or any other similar trademark, and also prayed for rendition of accounts of profit made by the defendant by using mark "SOWKHYA" towards damages.
5. The prayer has also been made for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to transfer the domain name www.sowkhya.com and all other variants of the same registered in the name of the defendant or its agents etc. that are deceptively similar to the applicants/plaintiffs' domain www.soukya.com. to the applicants/ plaintiffs, besides claiming damages to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) from the defendant.
6. The plaintiff/applicant No.1 is a homeopathic doctor who has specialized in holistic medicine like homeopathy, yoga, acupuncture, etc. and began providing treatments and services relating to the said medicinal fields and complementary therapy, beauty care services, Holistic Health Clinic & Convalescent Home, Cosmetic Research Centre, Health Care Centre, Physiotheraby Centre, Massage Centre, Natural Medicine Medical Assistance, Natural Medicine Medical Clinic from the year 1998.
7. The plaintiff/applicant No.1 in the year 1989, set up Bangalore Holistic Medical Centre at Bangalore and on 4.7.1996 incorporated the company 'Indian Holistic Health Centre Private Limited. In the year 1998, Dr. Mathai coined the word 'SOUKYA' and set up Holistic Wellness Clinic in Bangalore. The first applicant/plaintiff thereafter in 2002 shifted his operations to Soukya International Holistic Health Centre which is also known as Soukya Dr. Mathai's International Holistic Health Centre in Whitefields, Bangalore.
8. The name of the company incorporated in the year 1996 was subsequently changed in the year 2008 to Soukya Indian Holistic Health Centre Private Limited, the second applicant/plaintiff herein. The first applicant/plaintiff on or about 21.2.2000, to obtain statutory right over the said mark, filed two applications for registration of the said mark under No.904711 in Class 16 (Printed matters, photographs, stationary, artistic material, etc) and under No.904710 in Class 05 (pharmaceutical, dietetic substance adapted for medical use, food for babies, etc.) before the Registrar of Trade Marks. The applications were allowed on 4.5.2005 and 29.11.2006 respectively.
9. That at the time of filing these applications, the provision of service class was not introduced in the provisions of Trade & Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 and when the service classes were introduced in the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the first applicant/plaintiff filed another application for registration of its famous