Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
S.N. Variava, J.
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD. - PLAINTIFFS
v.
RELIANCE POLYCRETE LTD. - DEFENDANTS.
Notice of Motion No. 389 of 1996, In Suit No. 505 of 1996,
Decided on: July 4, 1997
PASSING OFF - INJUNCTION - SIMILARITY OF MARKS - CONFUSION AND DECEPTION - COMMON FIELD OF ACTIVITIES - UNDERTAKING BY DEFENDANTS - PUBLIC INTEREST.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, a large company with a registered trademark "Reliance" in Class-23 for yarns and threads, sought an injunction to restrain the Defendants from using the mark "Reliance" or any deceptively similar mark, alleging passing off. The Defendants, who had been using the name "Reliance" as their corporate name and trademark since 1991, manufactured sanitary wares and polyester resin, the latter being a common item with the Plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the word "Reliance" was not synonymous with the Plaintiffs or their group companies in all fields of activities and that the public would not confuse sanitary wares manufactured by the Defendants with those of the Plaintiffs. The Court also accepted the Defendants' undertaking that they would only manufacture polyester resin for personal consumption and not sell it in the market under the mark "Reliance".
Issues: 1. Whether the word "Reliance" had become synonymous with the Plaintiffs and their group companies in all fields of activities, such that the public would associate the word only with them, irrespective of the field of activity or trade in which it was used. 2. Whether the Defendants' use of the mark "Reliance" was likely to cause confusion and deception among the public, leading them to believe that the Defendants' products were those of the Plaintiffs or a company associated with them. 3. Whether the Defendants' undertaking to only manufacture polyester resin for personal consumption and not sell it in the market under the mark "Reliance" was sufficient protection for the Plaintiffs.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the word "Reliance" was not synonymous with the Plaintiffs or their group companies in all fields of activities, as evidenced by the existence of numerous other companies and firms using the same word in their corporate or firm names, as well as the registration or pending applications for registration of the word "Reliance" as a trademark in various classes. 2. The Court found that there was no evidence to suggest that the Defendants had dishonestly adopted the name or mark, and that the Plaintiffs had not pointed out a single instance of deception or confusion resulting from the Defendants' use of the mark. 3. The Court held that the Defendants' undertaking to only manufacture polyester resin for personal consumption and not sell it in the market under the mark "Reliance" was sufficient protection for the Plaintiffs, as it eliminated the only common item of manufacture between the parties.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion for injunction, holding that they were not entitled to any further or other reliefs at that stage.
S.N. Variava, J. - This is a Notice of Motion for injunction in an action for passing off. By this Notice of Motion, Plaintiffs seek to restrain the Defendants from using in respect of any goods the mark "Reliance" or any other mark which is deceptively similar to the mark "Reliance" so as to pass off the business and/or products of the Defendants as those of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs also seek an injunction to restrain the Defendants from using the work "Reliance" as part of its corporate name. The Plaintiffs further seek ancillary reliefs.
2. Mr. Tulzapurkar submits that the Plaintiffs were incorporated in 1966 as Reliance Textiles Industries Limited. He submits that in 1976 one Nylon Limited was amalgamated with the Plaintiffs. He submits that in 1985, the work "Textile" was deleted from the name of the Plaintiff Company. He submits that the Plaintiffs are manufacturing Textiles, Yarn, Petrochemicals and Polyester Resins. He submits that the Plaintiffs have "Reliance" as a Registered Mark in Class-23 under No. 34123-B. Mr. Tulzapurkar however clarifies that in this Notice of Motion Plaintiffs are not claiming any reliefs on the basis of infringement.
3. Mr. Tulzapurkar further submits that apart from the Plaintiffs, there are a large number of group Companies carrying on varying businesses under the following names :
(1) Reliance Petroleum Limited
(2) Reliance Capital Limited
(3) Reliance Industrial & Infrastructures Limited
(4) Reliance Power Limited
(5) Reliance Telecom Private Limited
(6) Reliance Europe Limited.
4. Relying upon Exhibit-D to the Plaint, Mr. Tulzapurkar submits that the Plaintiff-Company have a very large sale and turnover. He also relies on Exhibit-E to the Plaint to show that the Plaintiff-Company have carried on an extensive saies promotion and advertisement expenditure.
5. Mr. Tulzapurkar submits that by reason of a Circular dated 18th December, 1995, the Plaintiffs came to learnt that the Defendants are carrying on business with the use of the name "reliance" as its corporate name and that the Defendants used "Reliance" as a Trade Mark. Mr. Tulzapurkar points out the Circular dated 18th December, 1995 which is at Exhibit-F1 to the Plaint. He also points out the prospectus which had been issued by the Defendants. He points out that in the prospectus the Defendants have in hold letters put note to the effect that they are not directly or indirectly connected with the Plaintiff Company or their group Companies. He submits that this it self shows that even according to the Defendants there was likelihood of deception and confusion in the minds of the public. Mr. Tulzapurkar also points out the following from the prospectus as follows:
"The company was not engaged in any operations during the period 1986-91 and it started commercial operation only in July, 1991 with the manufacturing of cultured marble sanitary were like bath Tubs, wash basin, W.C. etc. Few more items like kitchen sinks, shower trays, soap dishes were added in 1992. During the year 1993 product range was expanded with the inclusion of mirror frames, staircase pillars and urine pots etc. besides diversifying into the manufacturing of fibre glass bath Tubs. At present the Company has manufacturing facilities for Cultured Marble, Acrylic and Fibre Glass products under one roof. The Company had taken term loans of Rs. 46.40 lacs and Rs. 9.10 lacs from UPFC in the years 1989 and 1991, respectively. The Company has entered into a one time settlement in 1994 with UPFC. There was a delay of 45 days and 22 days in repayment of two instalments of Rs. 4,27,600/- each in repayment of term loan. The term loan has been fully repaid to UPFC in the year 1994-95. Dr. Sudesh K. Jain took control over the Company in January 1994, and at that time the Company was not in a position to fully utilize its installed capacity and in the meantime the Company started trading and marketing activities. The trading activities consisted of trading in compu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
