Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Lisa Gill, J.
Jindal Rectifiers - Appellant
Versus
Jindal Power & Anr. - Respondents
F.A.O. No. 6645 of 2019
Decided On : 06-04-2021
Trademark Infringement - Trademark - Section 151 CPC - Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC - [Parle Products (P) Ltd. Vs. J.P. and Co., Mysore, (1972) AIR SC 1359, Bajaj Electricals Ltd. Vs. Metals and Allied Products (Bombay),1988 AIR(Bombay) 167, Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., (2002) AIR SC 117] - The court discussed the deceptive similarity of trademarks, the acquisition of distinctiveness and secondary meaning of a name, and the use of a surname as a trademark. These legal provisions influenced the court's decision to allow the appeal and grant a temporary injunction against the defendants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging infringement of trademark, dilution of goodwill, unfair competition, and rendition of accounts of profits/damages against the respondents-defendants no.1 and 2, restraining them from using any trademark deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff or any other mark/name having 'M/s. Jindal' domain name and/or in any manner whatsoever in respect of any infringement or passing of goods of defendants as goods of the plaintiff. The trial court dismissed the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC, stating that the products were not similar or identical, the logos were different, and the plaintiff failed to prove a prima facie case or balance of convenience in its favor.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court erred in dismissing the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. It held that the appellant-plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for temporary injunction, and the balance of convenience was in favor of the appellant. The court also clarified that its observations in the appeal would have no effect on the proceedings before the trial court.
Issues: The issues involved trademark infringement, deceptive similarity of trademarks, acquisition of distinctiveness and secondary meaning of a name, and the use of a surname as a trademark.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the appellant-plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for temporary injunction, and the balance of convenience was in favor of the appellant. The court also considered the deceptive similarity of trademarks, the acquisition of distinctiveness and secondary meaning of a name, and the use of a surname as a trademark.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order dated 29.08.2019 was set aside. The respondents-defendants were restrained from using any mark having 'Jindal' either in whole, as a part thereof, either as a trademark, trade name, domain name, in any manner whatsoever in respect to goods services and/or any other activity.
JUDGMENT
Lisa Gill, J. - Plaintiff-Appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved of order dated 29.08.2019, whereby its application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction alleging infringement of trademark, dilution of goodwill, unfair competition and rendition of accounts of profits/damages, against the respondents-defendants no.1 and 2, restraining them from using any trademark deceptively similar to the registered trademark of plaintiff or any other mark/name having 'M/s. Jindal' domain name and/or in any manner whatsoever in respect of any infringement or passing of goods of defendants as goods of the plaintiff. The suit was initially filed against the three defendants. One of the defendants i.e. defendant no.3 Satish Kumar, Proprietor of 'Jindal Transformer Industries' appeared and suffered a statement that he had surrendered his GST number before the Goods and Services Department, which was in the name of M/s. Jindal Transformer Industries. He further stated that he would not use the name of 'M/s. Jindal Transformer Industries' or 'M/s Jindal' for the purpose of his business. In this view of the matter, defendant was given up from the array of parties.
3. Appellant-Plaintiff claimed to be a proprietorship concern, engaged in the business of manufacturing of power control devices since 1983, with sales, services representatives/offices all over India by the name and style of 'Jindal Rectifiers'. Appellant-plaintiff got the trade mark registered bearing no.949619 in the year 2007 in class 9 in respect of Industrial Voltage Stabilizers, Silicon Rectifiers, Hydrogenation Rectifiers, Transformers, parts and Fittings thereof (Annexure P-2). It is further stated that defendant no.2 - Surender Kundu was an ex-employee of the plaintiff and worked with plaintiff as an electrician for six years since 01.06.2012 to 18.07.2017 and was closely associated with the affairs of the plaintiff. Defendant/respondent no.2 is the proprietor of defendant no.1, which is sole proprietorship concern. Respondent no.2 though having no relation whatsoever with the petitioner-firm or with the name of 'Jindal' started his own proprietorship firm under the name and style of 'M/s. Jindal Powers' dealing in manufacturing of power control devices and started operating from the same city as that of petitioner i.e. Faridabad. It is further alleged that by using the aforesaid name, respondent started targeting the same customers while giving a false and deceptive impression of being associated with the petitioner-firm. It is further stated that trade name 'Jindal' has become a mark of identification of the products itself. The appellant has other sister concern/associate firms namely 'Jindal Electricals' and 'Jindal Electric and Machinery Corporation' with its proprietor Mr. Bharti Bhushan Jindal. Respondents, it is averred, started targeting the same customers giving a false and deceptive impression of being associated with the petitioner-firm. Deception on the part of the respondents, it is pleaded, is causing loss of work and tarnishing goodwill of the appellant-plaintiff which is primarily associated with the said trademark. When the respondents did not refrain from their illegal activities it is stated the suit was filed and an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC was also filed along with the suit claiming a prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the appellant besides an irreparable loss being caused to it, in case, respondents are not restrained from manufacturing and selling the power control devices identical to the power control devices of the appellants under the name and style of 'M/s Jindal Powers'.
4. Present respondents filed a written statement contesting the suit with contentions that the respondent/defendant was running his firm in the name and style of 'M/s. Jindal Powers', having its offi
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's consideration of deceptive similarity of trademarks, acquisition of distinctiveness and secondary meaning of a name, and the use of a s....
The court established that the rights of the prior user of a trademark are superior to those of a subsequent user, emphasizing the elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage in passing off c....
Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 protects bonafide use of one's own name or surname in business, emphasizing the need for honesty and bonafide intentions in using a surname as a trademark.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that in cases of trademark infringement, the likelihood of confusion and deception among the public must be supported by evidence. The court emp....
The court emphasized the importance of weighing the interests of contesting parties and the limited scope for interference with the trial court's discretion in granting or refusing temporary injuncti....
The combination of common words can be distinctive and unique as a trade mark, and the appellate forum has a limited role and cannot entertain new issues or documents at the appellate stage.
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
