IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DURAISWAMY, SUNDER MOHAN, JJ.
M/s. S.N.R. Dhall Mill, represented by its partner S. Vijay Kumar - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Kaleesuwari Refinary Private Limited - Respondent
O.S.A.(CAD)No. 82 of 2021 and C.M.P.No.16023 of 2021
Decided On : 26-07-2022
Trade Mark - Infringement - Trade Mark Act, 1999 - Section 29(9)
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant/Plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, claimed infringement of their Trade Mark ''GOLD WINNER'' for dhall products by the Respondent/Defendant. The Respondent/Defendant argued that they were the largest Sunflower oil Manufacturers in India and had a registered Trade Mark for ''GOLD WINNER'' in Class 29. The Appellant/Plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining the Respondent/Defendant from infringing the Trade Mark and passing off their goods.
Finding of the Court:
The learned Single Judge held that the Respondent/Defendant did not infringe the Trade Mark of the Appellant/Plaintiff and dismissed the suit. The Appellant/Plaintiff appealed the decision.
Issues: The issues included whether the Respondent/Defendant's use of the Trade Mark ''GOLD WINNER'' for dhall products constituted infringement or passing off, and whether the Appellant/Plaintiff had proved actual use of the registered Trade Mark.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court found that the Respondent/Defendant's use of the Trade Mark did not amount to infringement or passing off. The Court also held that the Appellant/Plaintiff had not proved actual use of the registered Trade Mark.
Final Decision: The Original Side Appeal was dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT :
(Sunder Mohan, J.)
(Prayer : Original Side Appeal filed under Section 13(1) of Commercial Court Act, to set aside the Judgement and decree passed by this Court in C.S.No.164 of 2017 dated 26.04.2021, allow the O.S.A.)
Challenging the Judgement and decree dated 26.04.2021 made in C.S.No.164 of 2017, the appellant has preferred the above Original Side Appeal.
2. The case of the Appellant/Plaintiff's in the suit was that they were a registered partnership firm and had registered themselves with various Statutory Authorities for the purpose of their business. They were also registered under the Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drugs Administration. In order to create the brand identity for quality products manufactured and sold by them, they conceived, adopted and used the Trade Mark ''GOLD WINNER'' since 1999 for dhall and Flour varieties. They had obtained registration for the mark ''GOLD WINNER'' (LABEL) under Class 30. They generated enormous amount of goodwill and reputation in the Trade circles and that their Trade Mark ''GOLD WINNER'' is well established and well known Trade Mark. Thus, according to the Appellant/Plaintiff, they acquired both Statutory and Common Law Right of the said Trade Mark. According to the Appellant/Plaintiff, the Respondent/Defendant was doing the business of selling Sunflower oil and Vanaspati under the Trade Mark ''GOLD WINNER'' registered under Class 29. The Respondent/Defendant was selling dhall varieties under Trade Mark ''SREE GOLD'' since 2005 registered under Class 30. During that time, the Respondent/Defendant filed a rectification petition before the Trade Mark Registery, challenging the registration of the Appellant/Plaintiff's Trade Mark ''GOLD WINNER''. However, for the reasons best known to them, the Respondent/Defendant had withdrawn the said rectification petition on 30.01.2013, at the final stage. Thereafter, in the year 2017, the Respondent/Defendant started manufacturing and selling dhall varieties in the name ''GOLD WINNER'' which was deceptively similar to the Appellant/Plaintiff's registered Trade Mark. The Respondent/Defendant were aware of the prior registration of Appellant/Plaintiff's Trade Mark for dhall varieties and the Act of introducing dhall varieties in the same name ''GOLD WINNER'' showed dishonest and malafide intention. In fact, the Respondent/Defendant were selling their dhall products in the name of registered Trade Mark ''SREE GOLD'' till 2017 and the sudden change was made fraudulently and dishonestly to cut into the Appellant/Plaintiff's business and piggy back on its reputation in the Trade circles. The appellant therefore, prayed for permanent injunction restraining the Respondent/Defendant from infringing the Trade Mark and passing off their goods bearing the impugned Trade Mark as that of the Appellant/Plaintiff's goods and for consequential reliefs.
3. The Respondent/Defendant filed a written statement stating inter alia that they were the largest Sunflower oil Manufacturers in India and their brand ''GOLD WINNER'' is ranked among the top 100 FMCG consumer brands in India and is No.1 in the Edible Oils Category in South India. They adopted and conceived the mark ''GOLD WINNER'' in January 1993 with distinctive character for oil and vanaspati. They were the proprietor of the invented Trade Mark for almost 25 years and were registered under Class 29 for ''GOLD WINNER'' and Class 30 for the mark ''GOLD WINNER SREE GOLD''. The Respondent/Defendant launched a range of dhall products in the year 2005 under the Trade Mark ''GOLD WINNER SREE GOLD''. The Respondent/Defendant is the absolute proprietor of the Trade Mark ''GOLD WINNER'' and various Trade Marks registration in Class 29 and Class 30. They had also secured international Trade Mark registration for its mark ''GOLD WINNER''. By virtue of their extensive use, statutory registration as well as publicity,
Vishnudas Trading as Vishnudas Kishendas vs. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd.
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs. Navaratna Pharmacutical Laboratories
Registry is directed and delegated by Court to determine the costs as per the Bill / Memo of Costs submitted by the defendant in accordance with Section 35 of CPC, as amended by the Commercial Courts....
The court emphasized that prior user rights prevail over subsequent registrations, particularly when malafide intentions to misappropriate goodwill are evident. The removal of confusingly similar tra....
The court established that the respondent's trademark 'GREEN DIAMOND' was a dishonest adoption of the petitioner's trademark 'DIAMOND', leading to confusion and passing off, warranting cancellation o....
Appellate court interferes with trial court's refusal of interim injunction in passing off where findings on mark as generic lack pleadings support, plaintiff shows prior use/secondary meaning, and d....
Registered trademark owners are entitled to prevent unauthorized use that is likely to confuse consumers, establishing a right to seek injunction and damages for infringement and passing off.
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.