JUDGEMENT

% 05.12.2022

1. The plaintiff Aktiebolaget Volvo (hereinafter “Volvo”) claims to be one of the most reputed Automotive Companies in the world. The defendant is a car assurance company. It provides services, inter alia, of warranty coverage for servicing of premium and luxury vehicles availed by the owners of such vehicles from service stations located across the country.

2. The plaintiff, in the suit, has clearly stated that it has no objection to the defendant providing such car assurance services, even in respect of vehicles manufactured by the plaintiff and authorised service stations. However, the plaintiff objects to the graphical and other descriptions employed by the defendant while advertising its services which, according to the plaintiff, may leave unwary customers to believe that the services are provided by the plaintiff itself, especially as the plaintiff also provides insurance service for its vehicles for a specified number of years.

3. Specifically, the objection of the plaintiff is to the use, by the defendant, of the plaintiff’s registered trademark . It is alleged in the plaint that the manner in which the said mark is employed by the defendant is likely to deceive customers of such vehicles, who seek to service their vehicles, into believing that the assurance services provided by the defendant emanate from the plaintiff.

4. In para 41 of the plaint, it is averred thus:

“The Defendants would claim that they use the VOLVO logo to inform customers that their services cover Volvo branded cars. However, it is settled law that the use of the logo is not necessary to provide such information to customers. Furthermore, while use of the word Volvo may be acceptable as a defence to infringement, it needs to be accompanied by a disclaimer that the Defendants are not associated with the Plaintiffs. As stated above, the Defendants do not incorporate such disclaimers in their advertising, either in print, audio-

visual or oral formats (i.e., direct interactions with customers).”

5. Further, para 45 of the plaint specifically states that “while the plaintiffs do not have grievance with the defendants’ business model, or that their warranty services cover VOLVO cars, the defendants ought to inform customers that they have no association whatsoever with the plaintiffs.

6. The defendant has placed on record an affidavit which would, according to the defendant, assuage the plaintiff’s grievances. The plaintiff has suggested certain changes in the affidavit. I have interacted with learned Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant and have perused the affidavit and, the parties have jointly agreed to the affidavit being in the following terms:

“I, Sujeet Nair, son of Sh. T. Muraleedharan Nair; aged 34 years; resident of 2001, Amman Solitaire, Chandavarkar Road, Borivali West, Mumbai 400092; Director of Edel Assurance LLP having its registered office at 1214/1215, 12th Floor, Hubtown Solaris, Professor N.S. Phadke Marg, Vijay Nagar, Andheri East, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400069, do hereby solemnly declare and affirm as under:

1. That I am Defendant No. 2 in the captioned matter, and also, a Director of the Defendant No. 1. Accordingly, I am well versed with the facts of the matter and competent to swear upon this Affidavit.

2. I say that by virtue of my position as a Director in Defendant No.

1, I am in-charge of the business and operations of Defendant No.

1.

3. I say that I have not received any legal notice till date from the Plaintiff concerning the grievances raised by it in the Plaint. Nor has any representative of the Plaintiff ever approached me regarding the same.

4. I say that there was no misrepresentation on part of Defendants to pass-off their products and services as being associated with those of Plaintiff’s nor was there any such intent to pass-off the products and services with those of the Plaintiff’s.

5. I say that I have removed the Plaintiff’s registered Trademarks viz.

the registered VOLVO logo from the Defendant