IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.T. ASHA, J.
Hindustan Unilever Limited, Chennai – Appellant
Versus
Andhra Detergents MAC Marketing Society Ltd, Andhra Pradesh & Another – Respondents
C.S. No. 202 of 2016
Decided On : 02-08-2023
Trademark Infringement - RIN - Section 27, 28, 29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The court discussed the acts and sections referenced in the case, highlighting the legal provisions and their interpretations that influenced the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a well-known FMCG company, filed a suit against the defendant for trademark infringement, alleging that the defendant's product RINSO was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademark RIN and its variants. The defendant did not file a written statement and was set ex-parte.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there were dissimilarities between the plaintiff's trade dress and the defendant's product, and the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had profited from the plaintiff's goodwill in the market. Consequently, the court ruled against the plaintiff and dismissed the civil suit.
Issues: The issues in the case revolved around trademark infringement, deceptive similarity, entitlement to relief, and the plaintiff's claim for a decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of similarity between the plaintiff's trademark and the defendant's product, as well as the plaintiff's failure to provide evidence of the defendant's financial benefit from using the plaintiff's mark.
Final Decision: The civil suit was dismissed, and the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief claimed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Civil Suit is filed under Section 27, 28, 29, 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 read with Order VII Rule 1 of C.P.C, 1908 and Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules, prayed to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
a) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its partners or proprietor as the case may be, its principal officers, members, servants and agents, sister concerns, distributors, wholesalers, retailers and all others acting infringing the registered trademark by manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, advertising including on the internet and in any other manner using the trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging RINSO or any other mark deceptively and/or confusingly similar to the registered trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging RIN and its variants belonging to the Plaintiff
b) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its partners or proprietor as the case may be, its principal officers, members, servants and agents, sister concerns, distributors, wholesalers, retailers and all others acting on its behalf from manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale, on the internet and in any other manner the or any distributing, advertising including t goods bearing trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging RINSO other goods bearing trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging deceptively and/or confusingly similar to the registered trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging RIN and its variants belonging to the Plaintiff;
c) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its partners or proprietor as the case may be, its principal officers, members, servants and agents, sister concerns, distributors, wholesalers, retailers and all others acting on its behalf from passing off the goods manufactured, marketed, advertised, 1. M distributed and/or sold by the defendant as the goods of the Plaintiff;
d) granting an order directing the defendant to deliver-up to an authorized representative of the Plaintiff for purposes of destruction, all goods in the defendant''s possession including cartons, containers, tubes, caps, labels, films, wrappers and any other printed matter bearing any trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging deceptively and/or confusingly similar to the registered trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging RIN and its variants belonging to the Plaintiff;
e) granting an order directing the defendant to rendition accounts of profits earned by the defendant by the sale of the goods bearing trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging RINSO or any other goods bearing trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging deceptively and/or confusingly similar to the registered trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging RIN and its variants belonging to the Plaintiff:
f) directing the defendant to pay the Costs of the Suit:)
1. The above suit has been filed for the following reliefs:
a) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its partners or proprietor, as the case may be, its principal officers, members, servants, and agents, sister concerns, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and all others acting infringing the registered trademark by manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale, distributing, advertising, including on the internet, and in any other manner using the trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging RINSO or any other mark deceptively and/or confusingly similar to the registered trademark/trade dress and getup and packaging RIN and its variants belonging to the Plaintiff;
b) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its partners or proprietor, as the case may be, its principal officers, members, servants, and agents, sister concerns, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, and all others acting on its behalf from manufacturing, marketing, selling, offering for sale, on the int
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the plaintiff to prove deceptive similarity and financial benefit in trademark infringement cases.
The judgment establishes the principle that phonetic similarity between trademarks can constitute infringement, and lack of a credible defense can lead to summary judgment in trademark cases.
A descriptive mark is not entitled to exclusive protection and a registered trademark may be removed from the Register if it is not used for a continuous period of five years.
Suppression of material facts is only relevant if it affects the claim, and the court will consider the overall impression of marks and the plaintiff's prior adoption and registration.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks, the likelihood of confusion or deception arising from the similarity of marks, and the prima facie case of infringeme....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in instituting a suit, suppression of material documents, lack of evidence, and significant differences between the marks can be fatal t....
The delay in instituting the suit is fatal to the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not even whispered about the reply notice issued by the defendant. This is very crucial since the defendants....
Trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright violation were established, leading to the grant of a permanent injunction, damages, and costs in favor of the plaintiff.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.