FAO-IPD 42/2021Page 1 of 11

$~11

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Date of Decision: 22^nd July, 2022

+

FAO-IPD 42/2021 & CM APPL. 4279/2017, 4280/2017

MS. SANDHYA KUMARI PROPRIETRESS

M/S SHIVANI TRADERS

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. S.K. Bansal and Mr. Veerendra

Sinha, Advocates.

versus

M/S GUPTA & SONS AND ANR.

..... Respondents

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. 58/2016 as well as

seeking a direction to dismiss the application filed by the Respondents

herein under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC.

2.

Appellant herein is the Plaintiff in the suit while Respondents are

Defendants No. 1 and 2. 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 the

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

2022:DHC:2868

FAO-IPD 42/2021Page 2 of 11

‘RINGO’ in course of its 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

2022:DHC:2868

FAO-IPD 42/2021Page 3 of 11

Section 45 of the Act. Appellant is thus entitled to protection of its

Copyright under Section 14 of the Act.

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

Respondents are also engaged in the same business, i.e., manufacturing and

marketing of confectionary items and namkeens and have adopted and are

commercially using the trademark/label RING in relation to the impugned

products. The packaging/trade dress of the Respondents bearing the

impugned trademark/label as brought out in the plaint is as under:-

7.

The impugned trademark, according to the Appellant, is identical

with and/or deceptively similar to Appellant’s trademark/label in every

aspect, i.e., phonetically, visually, structurally, conceptually and in all its

2022:DHC:2868

FAO-IPD 42/2021Page 4 of 11

essential features. Respondents have imitated to the extent that they have

also copied the literary work in ‘MAZZA AA GAYA’. Adoption of the

impugned trademark by Respondents is dishonest, tainted and mala fide and

the use of the impugned trademark is a false trade description within the

meaning of Section 2(1)(i) read with Section 103 of the Trade Marks Act,

1999, leading to unfair tra