Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2506
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
N. Ranga Rao and Sons Private Limited – Plaintiff
Versus
Sriman Industries, Virudhunagar – Defendant
C.S. No. 260 of 2017
Decided On : 04-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Plaintiffs : P.S. Raman for M/s. Rajesh Ramanathan.
For the Defendants : R. Sathish Kumar for M/s. P.C.N. Raghupathy.
Headnote:
CYCLE - Trademark Infringement - Ss.27, 28, 29, 134, 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 - [Ss.27, 28, 29, 134, 135]
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff filed a suit seeking Permanent Injunction to restrain the Defendant from infringing the Plaintiff's registered Trade Mark CYCLE. The Plaintiff claimed to have adopted the trademark CYCLE in 1954 and obtained registrations for various products under Class 3. The Defendant contended that they had been using the mark CYCLE for goods BENZOIN for 34 years and that the Plaintiff's conduct since 2004 amounted to acquiescence, delay, and latches.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Defendant failed to prove prior use and acquiescence, while the Plaintiff established the registration and reputation of the CYCLE trademark. The Court held that the Defendant's use of the mark for similar pooja product Sambrani led to deception and confusion, constituting infringement under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act.
Issues: The issues included prior use, exclusive rights over the name CYCLE, prior user of the mark CYCLE for goods BENZOIN, acquiescence, passing off of goods, and entitlement to various prayers sought by the Plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi: The Plaintiff's established registration and reputation of the CYCLE trademark, coupled with the Defendant's failure to prove prior use and acquiescence, led the Court to grant Permanent Injunction in favor of the Plaintiff.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, granting Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing the Plaintiff's registered Trade Mark CYCLE, and directing the Defendant to account for profits and surrender the unused offending labels to the Plaintiff with costs.
JUDGMENT :
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Prayer: Civil suit filed under Order IV Rule 1 O.S. Rules read with order VII Rule 1 of CPC alongwith Ss.27, 28 and 29, 134 and 135 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, to grant Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, its servant, agents or any one claiming through it from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's registered Trade Mark CYCLE by using the identical the offending Trade Mark CYCLE BRAND or any other mark or marks which are in anyway identically, deceptively similar to or a colourable limitation of the Plaintiff's registered Trade Mark CYCLE, passing of its products under the offending trade mark CYCLE BRAND, Directing the Defendant to render a true and faithful account of the profits earned through the sale of its products and also directing the Defendant to surrender the entire stock of the unused offending labels to the Plaintiff with costs.
1. This suit has been filed for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant, its servant, agents or any one claiming through it from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's registered Trade Mark CYCLE by using the identical the offending Trade Mark CYCLE BRAND or any other mark or marks which are in anyway identically, deceptively similar to or a colourable limitation of the Plaintiff's registered Trade Mark CYCLE, passing of its products under the offending trade mark CYCLE BRAND, Directing the Defendant to render a true and faithful account of the profits earned through the sale of its products and also directing the Defendant to surrender the entire stock of the unused offending labels to the Plaintiff with costs.
2. It is the case of the Plaintiff that they are leading manufacturers and suppliers in the industry of fragrances i.e. incense sticks and other allied products. The Plaintiff is engaged in business of manufacturing and selling incense sticks/Agarbathies and dhoops since 1948. The Plaintiff originally a proprietary concern in 1948 was established by late Mr. N. Ranga Rao, the grand father of the current directors of the company. They honestly conceived and adopted several trademarks including CYCLE, CYCLE BRAND with the device of a cycle, Cycle Brand Three in One with the device of a Cycle, Woods, LIA, HERITAGE, etc.
3. The Plaintiff submits that their predecessor adopted the trade mark CYCLE as early as in the year 1954 and has been using the same, openly, continuously and extensively for the past several decades. Due to the hard work, high quality products, strong brand value and efficient services catered under the house mark CYCLE, the trade mark “CYCLE” has come to be identified by the consuming public with the Plaintiff alone and the said Trademark has become one of the most recognised and sought after brand, not only in India but overseas as well. The Plaintiff also obtained registration of the said mark under various classes and indicative list of which is as follows.
4. The Cycle Brand logo containing the device of cycle inside a unique oval shaped device is a unique and distinctive artistic work, which is also the house mark of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff annual sale turnover for the goods using the trademark CYCLE runs into several crores of rupees. They have also spent several crores of rupees for the sales promotional activities making the said trademark one of the most recognisable brands and envy amongst the peers. In view of such long continuous and extensive sales and promotional activities undertaken by the Plaintiff, the trademark CYCLE has come to be associated exclusively with that of the Plaintiff alone and no one else. The mark CYCLE has acquired tremendous reputation and goodwill among the trade and public, the trademark has become well-known trademark.
5. The Plaintiff recently came to know that the Defendant had started manufacturing, marketing and using t
