IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.
Pradeep Gupta – Petitioner
Versus
K. Brahmanandam – Respondent
C.M.A.Nos.544 & 548 of 2023
Decided On : 07-03-2024
(A) Trade Marks Act, 1958 - Sections 25(4) and 28 - Passing off - The appellant's father registered the trade mark '˜PRITI' in 1989 but failed to renew it after removal in 2013, leading to abandonment of the mark - The respondent, having registered the mark in 2019, is entitled to exclusive rights - The trial court's decision to grant injunction in favor of the respondent upheld. (Paras 28, 34, 35)
(B) Passing off - The principles governing passing off actions are well established, requiring proof of prior use and goodwill - The appellant failed to demonstrate continuous use of the mark '˜PRITI' post-2013, thus the respondent's registration is valid. (Paras 12.1, 12.2, 34)
JUDGMENT :
Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J.
Since the parties to the appeals are one and the same and the issues involved in both the appeals are interconnected, both the appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Heard Sri Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the appellant, as well as Sri P.Venkatarama, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the entire material available on record.
3. CMA.No.544 of 2023 is filed challenging the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the XII Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, in I.A.No.10 of 2023 in O.S.No.2 of 2023. The said I.A.No.10 of 2023 was filed to restrain the respondent therein from using the trade mark ‘PRITI’ in relation to the sewing machines of his manufacture and the same was allowed by the trial Court.
4. CMA.No.548 of 2023 is filed challenging the order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the XII Additional Chief Judge, Secunderabad, in I.A.No.564 of 2020 in O.S.No.54 of 2020. The said I.A.No.564 of 2020 was filed for grant of temporary injunction against the defendant from dealing or selling sewing machine with the Trade brand word ‘PRITI’ to any person pending disposal of the suit and the same was dismissed by the trial Court.
5. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, are that originally, the appellant’s father started manufacturing machines with trade brand name 'PRITI', after obtaining necessary license from the authorities. He migrated from Delhi to Hyderabad. The appellant’s father also registered the brand word 'PRITI' with Registrar of Trade Marks which was continued till 2013. The appellant’s father opened a Sales outlet of 'PRITI' sewing machine and obtained various trade licenses and General Sale Tax Registration Certificate, etc. in the name of appellant’s mother-Usha Gupta in the year, 1974. Since then, the appellant’s mother carried on the business of sale of sewing machine under the trade name and style of M/s 'PRITI' Sewing Machine Company and necessary licenses were issued for the said business in the name of appellant’s mother. After the death of appellant’s mother in the year 2019, the appellant succeeded the business of selling sewing machines under the trade brand name 'PRITI' by obtaining necessary licenses.
5.1. While so, the appellant came to know through Google search in second week of September, 2020, that the respondent applied for registration of the word 'PRITI' for doing sewing machine business in the year, 2017 and he is passing off in the name of 'PRITI Sewing Machine' since 2017. The appellant and his mother developed the sale of 'PRITI' trade brand sewing machine and got published the advertisements in daily newspaper. Therefore, the appellant is not only the proprietor, but also the owner of the trade mark by name 'PRITI’. But since 2017, the turnover was reduced and on his enquiry, the appellant came to know that the respondent is doing passing off business under the trade name of ‘PRITI’.
5.2. The appellant issued notice to respondent to stop the passing off business, but he replied that he is doing business of selling of sewing machines with the trade name of 'PRITI' since 2008 and got registration of the trade mark "PRITI" with the Registrar of Trade Marks on 10.07.2019. The appellant is the prior user and first in the market with the trade name 'PRITI for sewing machines and hence, he is only having right to do the business. The respondent obtained the registration of trade mark by name 'PRITI in the year 2019. So, he cannot do business with the brand name of 'PRITI' for selling sewing machines. The prima facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of the appellant. So, the respondent should be injuncted from doing the business under the name and style of "PRITI' Sewing Machine.
6. The respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and concisely, the averments are that the respondent was engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing various varietie
Dhariwal Industries Ltd and another Vs. M.S.S.Food Products (2005) 3 SCC 63
Midas Hygiene Industries (Petitioner) Ltd Vs. Sudhir Bhatia and others (2004) 3 SCC 90
Midas Hygiene Industries P. Ltd and another Vs Sudhir Bhatia and others 2004 (28) PTC 121 (SC)
Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc (2004)12 SCC 624
N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn (1996)5 SCC 714
Neon Laboratories Limited Vs. Medical Technologies Limited and others (2016) 2 SCC 672
Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph
S.Syed Mohideen Vs. P.Sulochana Bai (2016) 2 SCC 683
Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha Vs. Prius Auto Industries Limited and others (2018) 2 SCC 1
The failure to renew a trademark registration leads to abandonment, allowing subsequent users to claim rights.
The prior user of a trademark has superior rights in passing off actions, regardless of subsequent registration by another party.
The court upheld the plaintiff's rights as the prior user and registered owner of the trademark, granting an injunction against the defendant's use of a similar mark due to the likelihood of consumer....
A prior user of a trade mark has superior rights in passing off actions, preventing unauthorized use by subsequent users, especially when marks are likely to confuse consumers.
The judgment underscores that trademark registration alone does not guarantee protection without actual use, and that delay in action does not preclude injunction if infringement is proven.
In passing-off cases, the burden of proof for establishing prior user lies with the plaintiff, and failure to provide substantial evidence undermines claims for injunction.
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.
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.