FAO-IPD 7/2022 Page 1 of 11

$~1

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 22^nd July, 2022

+

FAO-IPD 7/2022 & CM APPL. 4288/2017, 4289/2017

MS. SANDHYA KUMARI PROPRIETRESS

M/S SHIVANI TRADERS

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. S.K. Bansal and Mr. Veerendra

Sinha, Advocates.

versus

M/S SAKSHI FOOD

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms. Indu Kaul, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)

1.

Present appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 08.11.2016,

passed by the learned Trial Court in suit bearing CS No. 55/2016 as well as

seeking a direction to dismiss the application filed by the Respondent herein

under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.

2.

Appellant herein is the Plaintiff in the suit while Respondent is the

sole Defendant. Parties hereinafter are referred to as per their litigating

status in this Court.

3.

Brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, to the extent necessary and

as set out in the plaint filed before the learned Trial Court are that Appellant

is engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing confectionary

items and namkeens as well as other allied, cognate and related goods. In the

year 2011, Appellant adopted the word mark/label ‘RINGO’ in course of its

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002867

FAO-IPD 7/2022 Page 2 of 11

trade, in relation to the aforesaid goods. Word ‘RINGO’ forms essential part

of Appellant’s artistic labels which are as follows:-

4.

In order to acquire statutory rights over the trademark/label/trade

dress, Appellant applied for registration on 30.09.2013 in class 30, which

was stated to be pending when the plaint was filed. Appellant represented its

label in an artistic manner including its get-up, lettering style, colour

scheme, placement of words, artistic features etc. and it is averred that the

said artwork is an original ‘artistic work’ under Section 2(c) of the

Copyright Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Appellant is the

owner and proprietor of the Copyright in the said label and has obtained ‘No

Objection Certificate’ from the Trade Marks Registry, in terms of Section 45

of the Act. Appellant is thus entitled to protection of its Copyright under

Section 14 of the Act.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002867

FAO-IPD 7/2022 Page 3 of 11

5.

It was stated before the Trial Court that Appellant is the proprietor,

prior adopter and continuous, extensive and exclusive user of its trademark/

label in relation to confectionaries and namkeens and the trademark is

identified as exclusively originating from Appellant’s source and none else.

The goods being of high quality have a great demand in the market and on

this count, Appellant has acquired tremendous goodwill and enviable

reputation, which is further evident from the substantial sales as reflected in

the Income Tax returns of the Appellant.

6.

It was urged before the Trial Court by the Appellant that Respondent

is also engaged in the same business, i.e., manufacturing and marketing of

confectionary items and namkeens and has adopted and is commercially

using the trademark/label RINGO in relation to the impugned products. The

packaging/trade dress of the Respondent bearing the impugned trademark/

label as brought out in the plaint is as under:-

7.

The impugned trademark, according to the Appellant, is identical to

Appellant’s trademark/label in every aspect, i.e., phonetically, visually,

structurally, conceptually and in all its essential features. Respondent has

imitated to the extent that it has also copied the literary work in ‘MAZZA

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/002867

FAO-IPD 7/2022