Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. P. MATHUR
SURENDRA KUMAR MAINGI - Appellant
Versus
DODHA HOUSE - Respondents
First Appeal 401 Of 1992
Decided On : 05/05/1997
TRADEMARK - INFRINGEMENT - PASSING OFF - JURISDICTION - COPYRIGHT ACT, 1957 - SECTION 62 - TRADE AND MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT, 1958 - SECTION 105 - SIMILARITY OF WRAPPERS - DECEPTION OF CUSTOMERS - BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a confectionery manufacturer, filed a suit against the defendant for infringement of copyright, trademark, and passing off. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's product packaging was similar to its own, causing confusion among customers. The trial court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from using the allegedly infringing packaging.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant's product packaging was not similar enough to the plaintiff's to cause confusion among customers. The court also found that the plaintiff's copyright and trademark were not infringed. Additionally, the court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the case because the defendant's business was located outside of the court's jurisdiction.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant's product packaging was similar enough to the plaintiff's to cause confusion among customers. 2. Whether the plaintiff's copyright and trademark were infringed. 3. Whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the defendant's product packaging was not similar enough to the plaintiff's to cause confusion among customers. The court noted that the two packages had different colors, fonts, and designs. 2. The court held that the plaintiff's copyright and trademark were not infringed. The court found that the defendant's product packaging did not contain any of the plaintiff's copyrighted material or trademarks. 3. The court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. The court noted that the defendant's business was located outside of the court's jurisdiction and that the plaintiff had not shown that the defendant had committed any acts within the court's jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction order granted by the trial court.
( 1 ) THIS appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) C. P. C. has been preferred by defendant No. 1 against the order dated 17-1-1992 of Ist Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad by which the application 5-C filed by the plaintiff was allowed and the defendants, their dealers, stockists and distributors were restrained from infringing the plaintiffs copyright existing in art work, label and wrapper by using these as wrappers for Maingis Todha. They were further restrained from passing off their goods as goods of plaintiff under trade mark Maingis Todha.
( 2 ) M/s. Dodha, House, Kot Ka pura, through its partner Subhash Chandra Vig filed O. S. No. 22 of 1990 against Surendra Kumar Maingi, Proprietor of M/s. V. R. K. Todha Sweet House, Kot Ka Pura and Pallu Ram for permanent injunction restraining them from infringing plaintiffs copyright existing in the art work, label and wrapper duly registered under the Indian Copyright Act by using these in the art work involved in defendants label and wrappers titled Maingis Todha Sweet, from infringing the trade name Dodha House of the plaintiff by using the word Todha as part of defendant trade name and also from passing off their goods as goods of the plaintiff under the trade mark Todha.
( 3 ) THE case set up by the plaintiff in the plaint is as follows. The plaintiff is a firm which was registerd under the Indian Partnership Act and Subhash Chandra Vig is one of its partners. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of manufacturing confectionary sweet-meats under the trade mark Dodha and has been carrying on his business under the trade name Dodha House, which trade mark was adopted in the Year 1912 and is being used continuously since then. The plaintiffs registered office is at Kot Ka Pura in District Faridkot and the branches are in Ludhiana, Delhi and Ghaziabad. The plaintiffs trade name Dodha House was duly registered on 15-1-1972 under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The plaintiff is also owner of Royal Dodha Sweets and art work/label and wrapper of the same were registered under the copy right Act. Thus the plaintiff has acquired exclusive right to use the trade name Dodha House and also the aforesaid art work/labels/wrappers. The plaintiff has extensive business. The details of sales from 1947 onwards have been given in para 9 of the plaint which rose to Rs. 14,14,145. 00 in 1989-90. The defendant No. 1 adopted trade name Todha with the word Maingis as its prefix and is selling the aforesaid goods duly packed in Maingis Todha label/wrapper in Kot Ka Pura since second week of September, 1990. The trade mark/trade name/label/wrapper and art work chosen by the defendant No. 1 is similar to that of the plaintiff in its composition colour, scheme and get-up etc. and it is a deliberate imitation. This is bound to cause deception and confusion in normal course of business activities of the parties. The defendants are passing off their goods and business as that of the plaintiff. The suit was accordingly filed for the reliefs mentioned above. The plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C. P. C. praying that during the pendency of the suit the defendants be restrained from infringing the plaintiffs copyright existing in the art work/label and wrapper, from infringing the trade name Dodha House and from passing off their goods and business as goods of the plaintiff.
( 4 ) THE defendants filed written statement and their case is as follows. The trade mark of defendant No. 1 is Maingis Todha Sweet and not Maingis Todha. The defendant No. 1 started his business under the aforesaid trade mark about 20 years back and his trade mark was very different from the plaintiffs trade mark "v. R. K. Dodha Sweet House, Kot Ka Pura". The word Todha is a description of sweet meat which cannot be property of an individual. The defendants product is not in the market at Ghaziabad. It is denied that the trade mark/trade name/label/ wrapper of the de
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
