Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Minda Corporation Ltd.& Ors vs Star Minda Oil Lubricants Ind. Ltd. & Ors on 14 October, 2020

Author: Mukta Gupta

Bench: Mukta Gupta

                                      $~2
                                      *     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                      +     CS(COMM) 449/2020
                                            MINDA CORPORATION LTD.& ORS.                  ..... Plaintiff
                                                    Represented by: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Ms.Bitika
                                                                    Sharma, Luv Virmani, Ms.Vrinda
                                                                    Pathak and Mr.Aman Dhyani,
                                                                    Advocates.
                                                         versus

                                            STAR MINDA OIL LUBRICANTS
                                            IND. LTD. & ORS.                              .... Defendant
                                                       Represented by: Mr.Nikhil Fernandez, Advocate for
                                                                       defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4.
                                            CORAM:
                                            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
                                                                ORDER

% 14.10.2020 The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing. I.A. 9352/2020 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is disposed of.

I.A. 9353/2020 (under Order XI Rule 1 (4) Commercial Courts Act)

1. Additional documents, if any, be filed within 30 days.

2. Application is disposed of.

I.A. 9354/2020 (exemption from filing documents in separate volumes)

1. Plaintiff is exempted from filing the documents in separate volumes.

2. Application is disposed of.

CS(COMM) 449/2020 I.A. 9351/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

1. Plaint be registered as a suit.

Signing Date:14.10.2020 21:55:53 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ Mukta Gupta

2. Issue summons in the suit and notice in the application to the defendants.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 accepts summons in the suit and notice in the application.

4. Summons in the suit and notice in the application be now issued to defendant No.1 on the plaintiffs taking steps through email, SMS, whatsapp, Speed Post and Courier, returnable before this Court on 18th February, 2021.

5. Written statement and reply affidavit along with affidavit of admission/denial be filed within 30 days of the receipt of summons in the suit and notice in the application.

6. Replication and rejoinder affidavit, along with affidavit of admission/denial, be filed within three weeks thereafter.

7. Case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs are part of the group companies called the 'Minda Group of Companies' which have a widespread and enviable presence in the automobile and spare parts sector. Plaintiffs claim that they are the leading manufacturers of automotive components and transact business under the house mark/trade name 'MINDA' and its variants and derivatives such as / and / UNO MINDA. The plaintiffs registrations for the label mark for MINDA in class 41, 7, 9, 11, 16, 17, 35 and device mark MINDA in classes 9 and 11 and the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANDEEP KUMAR CS(COMM) 449/2020 Page 2 of 6 Signing Date:14.10.2020 21:55:53 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ Mukta Gupta label/device mark UNO MINDA Logo in classes 7, 9, 11, 12, 35 are mentioned in para-3 of the plaint as under:

S. Mark Proprietor Applicati Applicat Cla status User date No. on Date ion no. ss

1. Spark Minda Minda 17/11/20 2235344 41 Registered 01/10/2011 Capital 11 Ltd., Plaintiff No. 4 herein

2. Spark Minda Minda 17/11/20 2235337 7 Registered 01/10/2011 Capital 11 Ltd., Plaintiff No. 4 herein

3. Spark Minda Minda 17/11/20 2235338 9 Registered 01/10/2011 Capital 11 Ltd., Plaintiff No. 4 herein

4. Spark Minda 17/11/20 2235339 11 Registered 01/10/2011 Minda Capital 11 and valid Ltd., up to 17/11/202 Plaintiff 1 No. 4 herein

5. Spark Minda Minda 17/11/20 2235341 16 Registered 01/10/2011 Capital 11 and valid Ltd., up to 17/11/202 Plaintiff 1 No. 4 herein Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANDEEP KUMAR CS(COMM) 449/2020 Page 3 of 6 Signing Date:14.10.2020 21:55:53 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ Mukta Gupta

6. Spark Minda Minda 17/11/20 2235342 17 Registered 01/10/2011 Capital 11 and valid Ltd., up to 17/11/202 Plaintiff 1 No. 4 herein

7. Spark Minda Minda 17/11/20 2235343 35 Registered 01/10/2011 Capital 11 and valid Ltd., up to 17/11/202 Plaintiff 1 No. 4 herein

8. MINDA Minda 27/04/19 241844 9 Registered Proposed to Spectrum 74 and valid be used Advisory up to Ltd., 27/04/202 9 Plaintiff No. 2 herein

9. MINDA Minda 12/04/19 711203 11 Registered 24/04/2001 Spectrum 96 and valid Advisory up to Ltd., 12/04/202 6 Plaintiff No. 2 herein

10. UNO MINDA Minda 19/03.20 2301985 99 Registered 01/12/2011 LOGO Mindpro 12 ( 7, and valid Ltd. 9, up to 11, 19/03/202 Plaintiff 12, 2 No. 3 35) herein

8. Grievance of the plaintiffs in the present suit is to the adoption of the mark STAR MINDA by defendant No.1, which is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANDEEP KUMAR CS(COMM) 449/2020 Page 4 of 6 Signing Date:14.10.2020 21:55:53 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ Mukta Gupta deceptively similar to the plaintiffs mark , whereby the defendant has deceptively and confusingly adopted similar device mark with the same colour combination and get up of blue, red and white for lubricants an allied field of work with that of the plaintiffs.

9. Though the plaintiffs claim that the mark 'MINDA' is a well known mark associated with the plaintiffs, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have no registration for the word mark 'MINDA' but the mark MINDA registered in favour of the plaintiffs is a device/label mark .

10. Considering the averments in the plaint as also the documents filed therewith, this Court finds that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case in their favour and in case no ex-parte ad-interim injunction is granted the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss. Balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants.

11. Consequently, till the next date of hearing, the defendants, their principal officers, assignees, agents etc. are restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising and/or promoting and/or using the mark whereby infringing the plaintiffs' trademark as also passing off their goods as that of the plaintiffs.

12. Compliance under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC be made within one week.

Signing Date:14.10.2020 21:55:53 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ Mukta Gupta

13. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

MUKTA GUPTA, J.

OCTOBER 14, 2020 'vn' Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SANDEEP KUMAR CS(COMM) 449/2020 Page 6 of 6 Signing Date:14.10.2020 21:55:53 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ Mukta Gupta