Back
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Hatsun Agro Products Ltd. , Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Arokiya Foods, A partnership Firm, Rep. by its partners V. Shanmugam & S. Murugesan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: The suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1of CPC r/w Order IV Rule 1 of High Court O.S. Rules and Section 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 55 & 62 of the Copyright Act, (a) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its agents, servants or any one claiming through it from in any manner infringing the plaintiff-s Trade Marks as described in the Schedule hereunder by using the offending trademark “AROKYA” written in Tamil or any other trademark or marks which are in any way identical or deceptively similar or colourable imitation of the plaintiff-s trademarks described in the Schedule to the plaint.
(b) For permanent injunction restraining the defendant by itself, its agents, servants or any one claiming through it from in any manner passing off its products as that of the plaintiff by using the offending trademark label AROKIYA written in Tamil and English or by using any other trademark or trademark label which is similar, deceptively similar or identical to that of the plaintiff-s trademark -AROKYA- either by manufacturing or selling or offering for sale or in any manner advertising the same.
(c) Granting permanent injunction res
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the dissimilarity of goods, the plaintiff's inaction amounting to acquiescence, and the lack of evidence to establish the plaintiff's reput....
The court confirmed that mere similarity in trademarks does not constitute infringement; factors like market presence and distinct branding are critical.
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 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.
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....
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
