Court found the defendant's mark 'MONTEE' to be deceptively similar to plaintiff's registered mark 'BOUNTEE', justifying interim relief for trademark infringement and passing off.

1. The plaintiff has approached this Court by filing the present Suit and application for interim reliefs in the context of its registered trademark 'BOUNTEE', concerning its product, a plant growth regulator and bio - stimulant. It is stated in the plaint that the plaintiff has been selling the aforesaid product under the mark 'BOUNTEE' with its house mark Godrej since 20.09.1997. The plaintiff holds a registration certificate for the said trademark 'BOUNTEE', dating back to 24.03.1998. The said certificate records the type of the trademark as 'device mark' with a specific limitation to the effect that the registration of the device mark with the artistic depiction shall give no right to exclusive use of device of leaf and other descriptive matter appearing on the label. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that recently, on 30.09.2022, the plaintiff has applied for grant of registration of the word mark 'BOUNTEE'.

2. The plaintiff has stated the figures pertaining to its sales volumes for the products sold under the registered trademark 'BOUNTEE' over the years and a certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant of the plaintiff shows that for the year 2021-22, the net sales figures were Rs.2,87,17,990/-. Certain documents, including invoices, have been placed on record on behalf of the plaintiff to show that the aforesaid product under the registered trademark 'BOUNTEE' has been sold, since the year it was introduced into the market by the plaintiff. Reference is also made to the advertisement expenses incurred by the plaintiff for publicity of the products sold under the said registered trademark, to indicate the presence of the product and the trademark in the public domain for a long period of time.

3. Mr. Dhond, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff invited attention of this Court to the documents filed along with the plaint and the pleadings in the plaint, as well as in the application to highlight the aforesaid aspects of the matter, in order to contend that the plaintiff's product with the registered trademark 'BOUNTEE' has been in the market for sufficiently long period of time, indicating the goodwill associated with the said product and the trademark. It is further submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the trademark 'BOUNTEE' is an arbitrary and invented mark of the plaintiff in connection with the said product.

4. It is further submitted that in or about June 2019, the plaintiff came to know about the impugned product of the defendants, also concerning the product of plant growth regulator and bio - stimulant, bearing the impugned mark 'MONTEE'. Upon finding that the said deceptively similar mark was being used by the defendants for a like product, the plaintiff issued a cease and desist notice on 14.06.2019 to the defendants. On 20.06.2019, the plaintiff received response from the defendants, wherein they denied that the mark 'MONTEE' was deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff. It was claimed on behalf of the defendants that their mark was unique, as it was derived from the name of the defendants' organization i.e. MONSUT. There were certain other distinctions sought to be drawn in the said communication on behalf of the defendants, in order to refute the claims of the plaintiff.

5. According to the plaintiff, it caused enquiries to be conducted in the market simultaneously and the product bearing the defendants' impugned mark was not found in the market. Due to this the plaintif