The court emphasized likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark law, holding that similar marks can infringe established trademarks regardless of differences in service or field, thus supporting the injunction for the registered trademark holder.

JUDGMENT :

S. MANU, J.

Appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.48/2021 of the Additional District Court-II, Ernakulam. Respondent/plaintiff filed the suit alleging that it belongs to a group of companies established in the year 1972 and is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of goods such as ice creams, frozen desserts, milk products, non-alcoholic beverages, syrups and other foodstuffs and services related to providing said goods by way of establishing restaurants, parlours and kiosks in India and various foreign countries. Goods and services of the respondent are manufactured, sold and supplied under the trademarks Lazza, Uncle John, Skei and I & U. According to the respondent, the trademark Lazza has been in use since the year 1990 and the word has become distinctive in relation to the goods and services and are being supplied and sold across the country and in various foreign countries through a well established business network. It is one of the most popular branches in south India with regard to the above mentioned goods and services. Through extensive advertisements the goods and services under the trademark Lazza have been promoted. Trademark Lazza and Lazza device marks are registered under the Trade Marks Act . Hence, the respondent claimed that it has the exclusive right to use the trademark Lazza and no other person has any right to use the said trademark or any mark identical or deceptively similar to it.

2. Further, the respondent claims that the trademark Lazza has acquired goodwill and trade reputation and it is a well-known trademark. On account of registration as also with long, exclusive and extensive use, the respondent has acquired legal, vested, statutory and common law rights to the exclusive use of the trademark Lazza. The respondent claims that it has been vigilantly protecting the intellectual property rights associated with the trademark.

3. The respondent contends that on 16.8.2021 its lawyer came across an advertisement in the Trademark Journal inviting objections against an application for registration of a trademark ‘HAZZA’ in Class 43. The respondent immediately filed notice of opposition against the said application before the office of the Registrar of Trademarks at Chennai and the same is pending. Thereafter it was noticed by the respondent that the appellant has started a restaurant-cum-bakery under the trademark ‘HAZZA’ at Kalamassery in Ernakulam District. Respondent alleges that the essential, leading and prominent feature in the trademark of the appellant is the word ‘HAZZA’, derived by replacing the letter ‘L’ in the mark LAZZA with ‘H’. The respondent uses colour combination of gold and black in the trademark ‘LAZZA’. Similar colour combination has been used by the appellant in its trademark ‘HAZZA’. Therefore, the appellant has adopted a phonetically, visually and structurally similar trademark. The further allegation is that the appellant is infringing the registered trademark of the respondent and obviously the intention is to deceive and mislead consumers and members of trade/public.

4. I.A.No.1/2021 was filed to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the appellant from using in any manner the trademark ‘HAZZA’ and/or the device mark ‘HAZZA’ or any other trademark identical and/or deceptively similar to the trademark ‘LAZZA’ registered in the name of the respondent and also from using the sign board or hoarding with the inscription/writing ‘HAZZA’ and/or the device mark ‘H