Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Deelux Cables India Pvt Ltd vs M/S Devendra Cables India Pvt Ltd on 15 February, 2019
-1-
jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; t;iqj ihB] t;iqj
vkns'k
S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO. 5803/2017
M/s. Deelux Cables and Wires Pvt. Ltd. G-1-1276-1277,
Phase-3, Sitapura Industrial Area, Jaipur-302022 Through
its Director Mrs. Rajrani Sharma.
--- Appellant-Plaintiff
VERSUS
M/s. Devendra cables India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 40, Tribhovan
Estate, Near Kathwada G.I.D.C., Kathwada Area,
Ahmedabad-382430, Gujrat Through Authorized
Signatory/Director/Manager/Representative.
---Respondent-Defendant
vkns'k fnukad % 15Qjojh] 2019 ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jh cuokjhyky 'kekZ Jh ?ku';ke nkl caly] vf/koDrk&vihykFkhZ dh vksj lsA Jh ds ,u 'kekZ] vf/koDRkk&izR;FkhZ dh vksj lsA vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ us ;g fofo/k vihy fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] dze&9 t;iqj egkuxj }kjk vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkFkZuk i= la[;k 18@2017 ¼eSllZ MhysDl dscYl ,.M ok;lZ izk0 fy0 cuke eS0 nsosUnz dscYl bafM;k izk0 fy0½ esa ikfjr vkyksP; fu.kZ; fnukad 16-09-2017 ls O;fFkr gksdj is'k dh gS] ftlds }kjk fd vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkFkZuk i= dks vLohdkj dj fn;kA izdj.k ds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj gSa fd vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ dEiuh us v/khuLFk U;k;ky; ds le{k izR;FkhZ@vizkFkhZ dEiuh ds fo:) ,d okn ckcr~ LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk is'k fd;kA mDr okn ds lkFk vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ dEiuh us vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk izkFkZuk i= bl vk'k; dk is'k fd;k fd izkFkhZ dEiuh] dEiuh vf/kfu;e 1956 ds rgr ,d iathd`r dEiuh gS ftldk VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX PREMIUM^^ Dykl&9 esa VªsMekdZ vf/kfu;e ds rgr iathd`r gSA izkFkhZ dEiuh ds izkseksVj@Mk;jsDVj dh ikfjokfjd QeZ -2- eSllZ MhyDl dscy b.MLVªht esa Hkh VªsMekdZ ^^ DEELUX^^ fnukad 05-06-80 ls yxkrkj bZysDVªhdy ok;j rFkk dscy fuekZ.k@fodz; ds fy, mi;ksx esa fy;k tk jgk gSA izkFkhZ dEiuh ,oa mDr iwoZorhZ QeZ dk uke Hkh VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX^^ ls gh izkjEHk gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dEiuh ds }kjk mRikfnr bysDVªhd ok;j rFkk dscy ds iSdsftax esVsfj;y] czksllZ] fcy@bUoksbl vkfn ij VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX^^ vafdr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izkFkhZ dEiuh us viuh csolkbZV Hkh ^^www.deeluxcables.com^^ ds uke ls cukbZ gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dEiuh dks ^^DEELUX CABLE^^ okyksa ds uke ls lEiw.kZ Hkkjro"kZ esa tkuk ,oa igpkuk tkrk gSA bl izdkj ^^DEELUX^^ izkFkhZ dEiuh dk VªsMekdZ gS vkSj ml ij izkFkhZ dEiuh dks bZysDVªhdy ok;j rFkk dscy fuekZ.k ds O;olkf;d mi;ksx dk ,dkf/kdkj izkIr gS vkSj bl iathd`r VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX PREMIUM^^ dh udy dj vizkFkhZ dEiuh us bl VªsMekdZ ds leku gh uke ^^DP DEELUX^^ rFkk ^^DEELUX POWERCAB^^ ds rgr ok;j rFkk dscy fuekZ.k ,oa fodz; dk O;kikj] O;olk; izkjEHk fd;k gS tks fd izkFkhZ dEiuh dks izkIr VªsMekdZ vf/kdkjksa dk [kqyk mYya?ku gS D;ksafd vizkFkhZ dEiuh ds mDr nksuksa ukeksa esa eq[; :i ls iznf'kZr 'kCn ^^DEELUX^^ gS] ftlds dkj.k lkekU;tu esa Hkze dh fLFkfr mRiUu gks x;h gSA vizkFkhZ dEiuh }kjk tkucw>dj nqjk'k;iw.kZ mn~ns'; ls izkFkhZ dEiuh ds iathd`r VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX PREMIUM^^ ds le:i VªsMekdZ ^^DP DEELUX^^ rFkk ^^DEELUX POWERCAB^^ cuk;k x;k gS ftlls lkekU; O;fDr vklkuh ls Hkzfer gksdj vizkFkhZ dEiuh }kjk fufeZr dscy rFkk ok;j dks izkFkhZ dEiuh ls lacaf/kr ekudj mi;ksx dj ldsA vizkFkhZ dEiuh ds }kjk bl izdkj ls HkzkfUrdkjd uke cukdj ok;j rFkk dscy dk O;kikj djuk dkuwuu fof/k&fo:) gSA izkFkhZ dEiuh ds mRiknksa dks vketu }kjk ^^DEELUX^^ ds uke ls gh tkuk igpkuk tkrk gSA vizkFkhZ dEiuh ds }kjk mi;ksx fd;s tk jgs yscy@fMtkbZu@yksxks ij eq[; :i ls ^^DEELUX^^ dks vU; 'kCnksa ds lkFk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa vU; 'kCnksa dk fof/kd :i ls dksbZ egRo ugha gS D;ksafd lkekU;tu ^^DEELUX^^ uke ns[kdj Hkzfer gksrk gS vkSj vizkFkhZ dEiuh }kjk fd;k x;k ;g d`R; bUQzhtesaV vkWQ VªsMekdZ dh Js.kh esa vkrk gS tks fd izkFkhZ dEiuh dks izkIr oS/kkfud vf/kdkjksa dk mYya?ku gSA izkFkhZ dEiuh dks fnukad 05-05-2017 dks tkudkjh izkIr gqbZ fd vizkFkhZ dEiuh us izkFkhZ dEiuh ds iathd`r VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX PREMIUM^^ dh udy dj ^^DP DEELUX^^ -3- rFkk ^^DEELUX POWERCAB^^ ds uke ls bZysDVªhd ok;j rFkk dscy dk fuekZ.k rFkk fodz; dk dk;Z izkjEHk fd;k gSA bl izdkj vizkFkhZ dEiuh }kjk fufeZr mRikn t;iqj 'kgj lfgr fofHkUu 'kgjksa rFkk vU; jkT;ksa esa fodz; gsrq miyC/k gSA bl izdkj izkFkhZ dEiuh dk izFken`"V;k dsl] lqfo/kk dk larqyu rFkk viw.kZuh; {kfr dk fcUnq mlds i{k esa gSA vr% mldk vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k tkdj vizkFkhZ dEiuh ds fo:) bl izdkj dh vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkos fd vizkFkhZ dEiuh] izkFkhZ dEiuh ds VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX^^ ds uke ls mDr of.kZr O;olk; u djs rFkk uk gh fdlh vU; O;fDr ls djkosA izR;FkhZ@vizkFkhZ dEiuh us mDr vkosnu ds tcko esa vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd vizkFkhZ dEiuh }kjk viuk iathd`r VªsMekdZ o"kZ 2002 ls yxkrkj fcuk fdlh fof/kd :dkoV ds mi;ksx fd;k tk jgk gS ftldks vizkFkhZ dEiuh us o"kZ 2008 esa iathd`r djok fy;k gS tks VªsMekdZ vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr iw.kZr;k lajf{kr gSA ftldh leLr tkudkjh jftLVªkj vkWQ VªsMekdZ vkWfQl Hkkjr ljdkj dh osclkbZV ij fu'kqYd miyC/k gSA izkFkhZ dEiuh dks ^^DEELUX^^ uke ij tks fd ,d ^^Descriptive^^ o ^^Non Descriptive^^ 'kCn gS] ij /kkjk 9 ds rgr dksbZ Hkh ,dkf/kdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrkA izkFkhZ us ,sls dksbZ nLrkost is'k ugha fd;s gS ftlls ;g lkfcr gks lds fd og lu~ 1980 ls yxkrkj bysDVªhd ok;j rFkk dscy fuekZrk@fodz; ds fy, ^^DEELUX^^ VªsMekdZ dk mi;ksx dj jgk gksA vizkFkhZ dEiuh us vU; rF;ksa ls badkj djrs gq, tcko esa ;g Hkh vfHkdfFkr fd;k gS fd ^^ DEELUX^^ ,d cgqr gh lkekU; vke cksypky dk 'kCn gS tks fdlh Hkh O;kikj ,oa O;olk; esa cgqr vke gks pqdk gSA Hkkjr ljdkj dh vkWfQfl;y osclkbZV ij izkFkhZ ds mRiknksa ds leku mRiknksa ds fy, Dykl&9 esa 100 ls vf/kd VªsMekdZ ftuesa ^^DELUXE/ DEELUX^^ 'kCn dk mi;ksx fd;k gS] jftLVMZ gS ;k jftLVªs'ku gsrq vkosfnr gSA ^^DEELUX^^ 'kCn ,d ^^Descriptive Term^^ gS tks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls ^^Distinctive Term^^ ugha gSA izkFkhZ us viuk VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX PREMIUM^^ nks 'kCnksa dks feykdj ,MksIV fd;k gS tks fd ,d Composit Mark gSA izkFkhZ dEiuh dk VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX PREMIUM^^ yksxks ds lkFk iathd`r gS uk fd VªsMekdZ ^^ DEELUX^^A VªsMekdZ vf/kfu;e 1999 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj Hkh VªsMekdZ esa ;fn ,d ls vf/kd Hkkx gS rks mudks ,d lkFk gh VªsMekdZ ekuk tkrk gS] uk fd mlds fdlh ,d Hkkx dks lajf{kr fd;k tk ldrk gSA izkFkhZ dEiuh ds iathd`r VªsMekdZ ds ,d Hkkx -4- VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX^^ dks VªsMekdZ vf/kfu;e ds fdlh Hkh izko/kku ds rgr dksbZ Hkh laj{k.k izkIr ugha gS vkSj u gh blds iathd`r VªsMekdZ ds ,d Hkkx VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX^^ dks bysDVªhdy ok;j rFkk dscy fuekZ.k ds O;kolkf;d mi;ksx dk ,dkf/kdkj izkIr gSA vizkFkhZ dEiuh dk VªsMekdZ ^^ DP DEELUX POWERCAB^^ gS tks fd iathd`r fd;k tk pqdk gS] ftldk yksxks] cukoV] dyj fMtkbZu vkfn Hkh izkFkhZ dEiuh ds VªsMekdZ ls iw.kZr;k fHkUu gS ftlls fdlh Hkh lkekU; foosd'khy O;fDr dks Hkzfer gksus dh ys'kek= vk'kadk ugha gSA vizkFkhZ dEiuh }kjk vius VªsMekdZ dks fcuk fdlh fof/kd :dkoV ds lkFk vius mRiknksa esa mi;ksx esa fy;k tk jgk gSA vizkFkhZ ds mRikn mlds iathd`r VªsMekdZ ds vUrxZr ,d csgrjhu xq.koRrk ,oa yEcs le; ls izpyu esa vkus ds dkj.k viuh ,d fof'k"V igpku cuk pqds gSaA vizkFkhZ dk iathd`r VªsMekdZ izkFkhZ ds VªsMekdZ ls fcYdqy fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k izkFkhZ fdlh Hkh izdkj ds vf/kdkjksa dk mYya?ku ugha djrk gSA vizkFkhZ us viuk ;wfud VªsMekdZ tks fd ,d vkfVZfLVd fMtk;u ds lkFk rS;kj fd;k gS vkSj fdlh Hkh vU; O;fDr ds VªsMekdZ ls feyrk tqyrk ugha gS] dks bZekunkjh ls ,MkWIV fd;k gS rFkk ftldk iathdj.k Hkh tkap ij[k dj VªsMekdZ ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj gqvk gSA vr% izkFkhZ dEiuh] vizkFkhZ dEiuh ds fo:) fdlh Hkh izdkj dh vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gSA izkFkhZ dk u rks izFken`"V;k dsl o lqfo/kk dk larqyu mlds i{k esa gS vkSj izkFkhZ dk vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu vLohdkj gksus ls mls fdlh izdkj dh gkfu gksus dh laHkkouk gSA vUr esa vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu vLohdkj fd;s tkus dh izkFkZuk dhA rRi'pkr fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us nksuksa i{kksa dks lqudj mDr izdkj ls vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ dEiuh dh vksj ls izLrqr vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu vLohdkj dj fn;k] ftlds fo:) ;g fofo/k vihy bl U;k;ky; ds le{k is'k gqbZ gSA vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ us vius dFkuksa dks nksgjkrs gq, fuosnu fd;k gS fd vihykFkhZ ds iathd`r VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX PREMIUM^^ ds le:i VªsMekdZ ^^DP DEELUX^^ rFkk ^^DEELUX POWERCAB^^ dk mi;ksx vizkFkhZ }kjk fd;k tkuk crkrs gq, fuosnu fd;k gS fd lkekU; O;fDr blls vklkuh ls Hkzfer gks jgk gS vkSj bl dkj.k vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ dEiuh dk O;olk; izHkkfor gks jgk gSA vizkFkhZ dEiuh us o"kZ 2002] 2003 rFkk 2004 ds flQZ 2&3 fcy is'k fd;s gSa] tcfd mlus o"kZ 2002 esa fookfnr VªsMekdZ -5- fy;s tkus dk dFku fd;k gSA ftlls Li"V gS fd tks fcy vizkFkhZ dEiuh ds }kjk is'k fd;s x;s gSa] os cSdMsV esa tkyh rS;kj fd;s x;s gSaA izkFkhZ dEiuh MhyDl dscYl ,.M ok;lZ izk0 fy0 fnukad 12-03-1996 dks fufeZr dh x;h Fkh vkSj rc ls gh izkFkhZ dEiuh yxkrkj dscy fuekZ.k rFkk fodz; dk dk;Z dj jgh gSA izkFkhZ dEiuh ds VªsMekdZ esa ^^ DEELUX^^ 'kCn izkFkhZ dEiuh dk Lo;atfur gS ftldk loZizFke mlh ds }kjk mi;ksx fy;k tk jgk gSA vizkFkhZ dEiuh dk fuxeu fnukad 18-03-14 dks gqvk gS rFkk vizkFkhZ ds uke ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ VªsMekdZ iathd`r ugha gSA vizkFkhZ dEiuh dh vksj ls tks nLrkost is'k fd;s x;s gSa] os iathd`r VªsMekdZ ^^DP DEELUX POWERCAB^^ ds is'k fd;s x;s gSa tks tksjkoj flag VªsfMax ,t jru ekdsZfVax ds uke ls gSa uk fd vizkFkhZ dEiuh nsosUnz dscYl bf.M;k izk0 fy0 ds uke ls gSaA tks fcy vizkFkhZ dEiuh ds }kjk is'k fd;s x;s gSa] muesa vf/kdrj jru ekdsZfVax ds i{k esa tkjh fd;s x;s gSa ftlls Hkh o"kZ 2002 esa fookfnr VªsMekdZ mi;ksx esa fy;k x;k gks] vizkFkhZ dk dFku >waBk lkfcr gks tkrk gSA ftl jru ekdsZfVax ds fodz; fcy ,oa iathd`r VªsMekdZ izek.k i= vizkFkhZ dEiuh }kjk vius leFkZu esa is'k fd;s x;s gSa] os Lo;a izkFkhZ dEiuh ls o"kZ 2004 ls 2013 rd izkFkhZ dEiuh ds VªsMekdZ ds uke ls fodz; fd;s x;s mRikn dz; dj jgh FkhA mls Hkh bl rF; dh tkudkjh Fkh fd VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX PREMIUM^^ izkFkhZ dEiuh dk iathd`r VªsMekdZ gSA vizkFkhZ dEiuh dh vksj ls vius tcko esa eq[; izfrj{kk bl ckr dh yh x;h gS fd ^^DEELUX^^ ,d fMD'kujh ehfuax gS rFkk ^^Descriptive Term^^ gS] ysfdu bl izdkj dh izfrj{kk fof/kd :i ls vizkFkhZ dEiuh dks izkIr ugha gSA ftl ij fopkj fd;s fcuk gh fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu vLohdkj djus esa =qfV dh gSA vr% vihy Lohdkj dh tkdj fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkyksP; vkns'k vikLr djrs gq, okafNr vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh djus dk fuosnu fd;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk vihykFkhZ us vius rdksaZ ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;s&
1. Charan Dass and M/s Veer Industries (India) vs. Bombay Crockery House, 1984 (4) PTC 102 (Del);
2. Super Seals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mantri Brothers, 1986(6) PTC 345(Del);
3. Perry Bottling Company Vs. S.S. Soda & Soft Drinks Company 2002 (2)DNJ 684;
-6-4. Pen Books Pvt. Ltd. vs. Padmaraj, Emily Estate, Kalpatta 2004 (29) PTC 137 (Ker);
5. Gandhi Scientific Company vs. Gulshan Kumar 2009 (40)PTC 22 (Del );
6. L.T. Foods Ltd. Anr. Vs. Sunstar Overseas Ltd. and Anr. 2012 (50) PTC 27 (Del);
7. Stiefel Laboratories vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. 2014 (211)DLT 296;
8. International Dog Bazar vs. International Dog World 2016 AIR (Raj) 81;
9. Rameshchandra Paliwal vs. Sima and Company 2017 (70) PTC 293 (Raj);
10. Sunil Mittal and Anr. vs. Darzi on Call 2017 (70) PTC 346 (Del);
11. Kantilal Premji Maru vs. Madan Kumar, 2018 (75) PTC 81 (Bom);
12. Living Media India Limited vs. Jitender V. Jain and Ors. 2002 (25) PTC 61;
13. M/s. Bikanervala vs. M/S New Bikanerwala, 2005 (5) R.C.R. (Civil) 26 &
14. Madhubhan Holiday Inn vs. Holiday Inn Inc.2002 (25) PTC 308.
mDr rdksaZ dk fojks/k djrs gq, fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ@vizkFkhZ dEiuh us fuosnu fd;k gS fd vizkFkhZ dEiuh vius VªsMekdZ ^^ DP DEELUX POWERCAB^^ dh iathd`r Lokeh gS ftldk vkosnu tksjkoj flag }kjk viuh ,dy LokfeRo dh QeZ jru ekdsZfVax ds vUrxZr fnukad 30-01-08 dks fd;k x;k Fkk rFkk O;kikfjd vko';drkvksa dh iwfrZ gsrq tksjkoj flag }kjk ,d izkbZosV fyfeVsM dEiuh eSllZ nsosUnz dscYl bf.M;k izkbZosV fyfeVsM dk xBu fnukad 18-03-14 dks fd;k x;k ftlesa tksjkoj flag funs'kd gSa rFkk mlus iathd`r VªsMekdZ dks izksijkbZVj QeZ ls izkbZosV fyfeVsM dEiuh esa gLrkUrj.k gsrq jftLVªkj vkWQ VªsMekdZ ds le{k leLr dk;Zokgh iw.kZ dj yh gSA ^^DEELUX^^ 'kCn ,d tsufjd 'kCn gS ftldk fMDlujh ehfuax mPp o mPpre xq.koRrk gSA izkFkhZ dEiuh ds VªsMekdZ dk ,d Hkkx ^^ DEELUX^^ 'kCn lkekU; ,oa Hkzked gS tks ^^ DELUXE^^ 'kCn dh =qfViw.kZ Lisfyax gSA VªsMekdZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlkj VªsMekdZ dks iw.kZrk esa ysuk gksrk gSA tgka fdlh Hkh VªsMekdZ esa ,d ls vf/kd Hkkx gS] ogka VªsMekdZ ds lEiw.kZ fgLls dks ,d lkFk i<k tkuk gksrk gSA VªsMekdZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17¼2½ ds vuqlkj ;fn fdlh VªsMekdZ dk dksbZ Hkkx ftldks VªsMekdZ ds Lokeh }kjk uk rks vyx ls iathd`r djok;k x;k gS vkSj uk gh iathdj.k ds fy, vkosnu fd;k x;k gS] ogka og Hkkx O;kikj esa cgqr gh vke gS ;k fdlh Hkh izdkj ls -7- lqfHkUurk fy;s gq, gks] ,sls Hkkx dks fdlh Hkh izdkj dk dksbZ ,dkf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksxkA orZeku ekeys esa izkFkhZ dk iathd`r VªsMekdZ ^^ DEELUX PREMIUM^^ gS ftldk ,d Hkkx ^^DEELUX^^ lkekU; ,oa Hkzked VeZ gS] ftldk izkFkhZ }kjk dksbZ iathdj.k ugha djok;k x;k gSA blfy, mls fdlh izdkj dk ,dkf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksrk gSA izkFkhZ dk VªsMekdZ ^^ DEELUX PREMIUM^^ vizkFkhZ ds VªsMekdZ ^^DP DEELUX POWERCAB^^ ls iw.kZr;k fHkUu gS ftlesa Hkzfer gksus dh dksbZ vk'kadk ugha gS D;ksafd nksuksa VªsMekdZ fcYdqy fHkUu gSa ftlds yksxks] fMtkbZu] QkWUV LVkbZy vkfn esa fdlh izdkj dh lekurk ugha gSA vizkFkhZ yxkrkj o"kZ 2002 ls vius iathd`r VªsMekdZ dks fcuk fdlh fof/kd :dkoV ds mi;ksx esa ys jgk gS ftls vizkFkhZ us o"kZ 2008 esa vius uke ls iathd`r Hkh djok fy;k gSA mUgksaus ;g Hkh fuosnu fd;k gS fd izkFkhZ Lo;a us izkjEHk ls gh vizkFkhZ dks tkuuk crk;k gSA rnuqlkj izkFkhZ izkjEHk ls vizkFkhZ ds VªsMekdZ dh tkudkjh j[krk gS vkSj mlus xyr :i ls fnukad 05-05-2017 dks vizkFkhZ ds VªsMekdZ dh tkudkjh gksuk crk;k gSA og LoPN gkFkksa ls U;k;ky; esa ugha vk;k gSA mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k gS fd vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vuqrks"k lkE; dk vuqrks"k gS vkSj foyEc ds vk/kkj ij izkFkhZ mDr vuqrks"k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha jgk gSA vizkFkhZ yxkrkj 15 o"kksZa ls iathd`r VªsMekdZ ds vUrxZr csgrj xq.koRrk okys mRiknksa dk O;kikj djus ls vizkFkhZ ds czk.M dh ,d lk[k cu pqdh gS rFkk vizkFkhZ dEiuh vius iathd`r VªsMekdZ ds izeks'ku vkfn ij djksMksa :i;s [kpZ dj pqdh gS rFkk mlds yk[kksa :i;s ds odZ vkWMlZ Hkh isafMax gS tcfd izkFkhZ dks vkt fnol rd vizkFkhZ ds iathd`r VªsMekdZ ^^ DP DEELUX POWERCAB^^ tks fd izkFkhZ ds VªsMekdZ ls fHkUu gS] ls fdlh izdkj dk dksbZ uqdlku ugha gqvk gS] u gh fdlh lkekU; tu dks Hkze gqvk gSA izFken`"V;k dsl izkFkhZ ds i{k esa ugha gS vkSj bUgha rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k gS] ftlesa izLrqr rdksaZ ds vk/kkj ij gLr{ksi fd;s tkus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k gS fd vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkns'k U;k;ky; ds foosd ij vk/kkfjr gS vkSj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us ;fn vius foosd ls vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k gS rks mPp U;k;ky; dks rc rd gLr{ksi ugha djuk pkfg, tc rd fd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vkns'k ijo'kZ] euekuk rFkk fof/k }kjk lqLFkkfir fl)kUrksa ds foijhr u gks] tcfd gLrxr izdj.k esa ,slk ugha gSA rnuqlkj mUgksaus vihy vLohdkj fd;s tkus -8- dk fuosnu fd;kA fo}ku vf/koDrk izR;FkhZ@vizkFkhZ dEiuh us vius rdksaZ ds leFkZu esa fuEu U;kf;d n`"VkUr is'k fd;s&
1. Hearst Communications, Inc. Vs. Dinesh Varyani and Anr. (2009) ILR 4 Delhi 799;
2. Nestle's Products (India) Ltd. Vs. P. Thankaraja and Anr., AIR (1978) Mad 336;
3. Marico Limited Vs. Agro Tech Foods Limited 2010 (43) PTC 39 (Del);
4. Rich Products corporation and anr. vs. Indo-Nippon foods limited MIPR 2010 (3) SN 04;
5. Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. MIPR 2016 (1) 0320;
6. Rajendra Singh Shekawat vs. Shrinath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. MIPR 2014 (2) SNC 05;
7. Datamatics Global Services Limited Vs. Royal Datamatics Private Limited MIPR 2016(2) 0001;
8. J.R. Kapoor Vs. Micronlx India, 1994 (14)PTC 260 (SC);
9. Essel Propack Ltd., Mumbai vs. Essel Kitchenware Ltd., Kolkata and Anr. MIPR 2016(1) 0344;
10. Skyline Education Institute (I) Private Ltd. vs. S.L. Vaswani and Anr. 2010 (42) PTC 217 (SC) &
11. Wander Ltd. and Anr. vs. Antox India (P). Ltd. 1991(11) PTC 1(SC).
lquk x;k] izLrqr rdksaZ ij fopkj fd;k x;kA vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr Charan Dass and M/s Veer Industries (India) vs. Bombay Crockery House ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "Under section 9 (1) (d) of the Act, the word 'perfect' being an adjective of a laudatory epithet cannot be registered and actually there being a disclaimer for the word 'perfect' in terms of section 17 of the Act the registration does not confer any right of exclusive use but disclaimer by itself does not, in any way, debar acquiring of a right to exclusive use of a word in the trade mark otherwise than by registration. The right against passing off is independent and does not arise out of registration which is clear from section 27 of the Act. In order to succeed in an action for passing off, the plaintiff has to establish user of the mark prior in point. That being so, the plaintiffs having been using the mark since 1964 which fact being not controverted and the defendants being the stockiest and sellers of the product of the plaintiffs can easily pass his own goods as -9- those of the plaintiffs. The balance of convenience being clearly in favour of the plaintiff as the suit may take lot of time being disposed of and in the meantime the defendants may go on selling stoves under the trade mark 'PERFECT' which may finish the market of the plaintiffs. In the circumstances the use of the trade mark 'PERFECT' by the defendant is stopped so as to avert irreparable injury happening to the plaintiffs. As regards the infringement of copyright, there being no similarity as to the shape and color scheme etc. of the cartons use for packing the stoves of the plaintiffs, the contention fails. Similarly, there is no necessity of issuing injunction in respect of design because as soon as the word 'Perfect is not used by the defendants on his product, the stoves manufactured by the plaintiffs is clearly distinguishable."
Super Seals India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mantri Brothers ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa oknh "SUPERSEAL" VªsMekdZ dks vius vkWVkseksckbZy psfll vFkok vkWVkseksckbZy ikVZ~l vFkok ,Iykbalst esa lu~ 1960 ls mi;ksx dj jgk Fkk rFkk izfroknh us gky gh esa VªsMekdZ "SUPERSEAL" dk mi;ksx djuk 'kq: fd;kA ftlds fo:) oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr okn ds lkFk vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ij fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk vUrfje fu"ks/kkKk tkjh djuk U;k;ksfpr ekuk gSA Perry Bottling Company Vs. S.S. Soda & Soft Drinks Company ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa izkFkhZ@vihykUV dk VªsMekdZ "Perry's (r) Fruit Beer"
jftLVMZ Fkk vkSj izR;FkhZ@vizkFkhZ us ukWu&,Ydksgfyd lkWQ~V fMªad "Fruit Beer" ds uke ls O;ok; djuk 'kq: dj fn;kA ftl ij bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "if the facts of this case are seen then it is clear that the product of the plaintiff is non-alcoholic soft dring which is being used by the general public in the cities as well as in the villages, therefore, it can be presumed that the product will be purchased by both villagers and resident of cities, illiterate as well as literate and, therefore, the question has to be approached from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and imperfect recollection and the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the purchaser in India cannot be equated with a purchaser of goods in England. So far as the violation to the right of trade mark of the plaintiff is concerned, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the phonetic similarity in the trade mark used by the plaintiff and the defendants because both are using same word "Fruit Beer", even if it is in Hindi or in English but it is phonetically similar. Therefore, it is clear that the trial court has not looked into the matter from this angle whether the trade mark of the -10- plaintiff as well as the defendants are phonetic similar or not and thereby committed serious illegality in deciding the application of the plaintiff. Above phonetic similarity with the trade mark of the plaintiff and in view of the fact that that plaintiff is a registered holder of the trade mark which is being used by the defendants, itself is a sufficient ground for grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. A customer will certainly ask for "Fruit Beer" from the seller who may be a small cabin-holder and the seller will give "Fruit Beer" which is product of the defendants without knowing that the customer had intention to purchase the product of the plaintiff only. This may result into not only loss to the trade of the plaintiff but may also result into the loss of goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff, if the product of the defendants is found to be of sub-standard which may cause serious irreparable injury to the plaintiff, which cannot be ascertained in the terms of money. Therefore, in my opinion, the plaintiff is entitled for grant of relief of injunction."
Pen Books Pvt. Ltd. vs. Padmaraj, Emily Estate, Kalpatta ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa dsjyk mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "Domain names or internet sites are entitled to protection as a trade mark and that the trade mark law applies to activities on internet. If that is so, the mere fact that petitioner has no registered domain name by itself may not stand in the way of in a passing off action. Though the two words are generic in nature when they are combined they get an identity of its own and is identified with the petitioner's establishment for years together. They are not as generic as "mutual fund" or "Kabadibazar" with respect to which the courts have taken the view that they are generic words and nobody can monopolise it. The plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is also in its favour and the injunction granted was valied. But the condition imposed was unnecessary as the dispute was not between the parties and that the condition is deleted and the appeal is allowed to that extent. The respondent is restrained by an order of temporary injunction from using the trade name WWW.Penbooks.com or offering the domain name for sale or alienating the domain name to any other persons.""
Gandhi Scientific Company vs. Gulshan Kumar ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "party who is seeking the discretionary relief has to approach the court with clean hands-Sufficient material placed by the Plaintiff on record about the user of the -11- trademark/label since the year 1999-Interim injunction, made absolute."
bl U;kf;d n`"VkUr ls lacaf/kr izdj.k esa izkFkhZ 1999 ls VªsMekdZ dk mi;ksx dj jgk Fkk] ftl ij vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkns'k fd;k tkuk mfpr ekuk x;k gSA L.T. Foods Ltd. Anr. Vs. Sunstar Overseas Ltd. and Anr. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd U;k;ky; ds le{k feF;k nLrkost is'k djus ds vk/kkj ij izfroknh dks lkE; ds vuqrks"k ds ;ksX; ugha ekuk vkSj mldk vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k x;k] tcfd izkFkhZ dk vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu Lohdkj fd;k x;k FkkA Stiefel Laboratories vs. Ajanta Pharma Ltd. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "The Defendant has itself applied for and obtained registration of its mark, which it claims to have adopted by telescoping letters from generic drugs. Further the court has to be very cautious in dealing with medicinal products. If rival deceptively similar marks are permitted to stay in the marker in respect of pharmaceutical products, there is likelihood of grave injury to the public. Where greater public interest is involved, the commercial rights of parties are to become subservient. If there is any likelihood of confusion in the two competing marks that have been applied to pharmaceutical products, the deceptively similar mark that had entered the market later in time has to go. Prima facie the marks of the Defendant had entered the market later in point of time than the mark of the Plaintiffs. The marks are deceptively similar."
International Dog Bazar vs. International Dog World ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa oknh QeZ "International Dog Bazar" o mldh abbreviation-
"IDB" esa mi;ksx ys jgk Fkk vkSj osclkbV "www.internationaldogbazar.com" dk mi;ksx dj jgk FkkA og thfor
tkuoj o ikyrw dqRrksa dk O;olk; djrk FkkA izfroknh us Hkh ckn esa blh uke ls "International Dog World" o mldh abbreviation- "IDW" dke esa ysuk 'kq: dj fn;k vkSj viuh osclkbZV "www.internationaldogworld.com"
-12-blh O;olk; ds fy, dke ysuk 'kq: dj fn;kA oknh us vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu is'k fd;kA ftls fopkj.k U;k;ky; us vLohdkj dj fn;kA ftl ij bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "(1)substantial similarity between two names by mere reason of difference in the suffix "Bazar"/"world"
does not create difference- General Impression- layman- average intelligence or common man with an ordinary imperfect recollection or memory could not be able to distinguished both trademarks/ Trade name- substantial similarity would cause confusion in the mind of public- Therefore, action of defendant brings within the purview of passing off action.
(2) Passing off action 'A' is not entitled to represent his goods as the goods of 'B' in the mind of customers side by side comparison may habit many and various differences but due to substantial similarity ordinary man might or particulars are taken in case of device mark consider what are the essential features and particulars of the device.
(3) In an action for passing off, it is usual, rather essential to seek an injuction, temporary or ad-interim passing off cases are often cases of deliberate and intentional misrepresentation.
(4) It is well settled that fraud is not necessary element of the right of action absence of intention to deceive is not a defence probability of deception is sufficient.
(5) Plaintiff does not have to prove actual damage in order to succeed in action for passing off liklihood of damages is sufficient.
(6) Passing of action similarities rather than the dissimilarities, have to be taken note of the court principle of phonetic "similarity" cannot be ignored.
(7) The passing of action depends upon the principles that nobody has right to represent his goods as the goods of somebody- In other words a man is not sell his goods or services under the pretence that they are those of other person.
(8) It is well settled that in case of infringement either of trademark or of copyright, normally an injunction in such cases.
(9) Passing off action test of similarity to be applied whether a man of average intelligence and of imperfect recollection would be confused an unwary purchaser is not keep the goods of two manufacturer for side by side comparison to compare similarities and dissimilarities thereon meticulously to decide whether he is purchasing the same goods which he had intended to buy.
(10) Deception can be cause by user of one or more essential features of a Mark- likely to be confused on the first impression-duty of the court.
(11) passing off action plaintiff has to established prior user to secure an injunction the registration of -13- Mark or similar Mark prior in point of time is irrelevant.
(12) The principle of similarity cannot be very rigidly applied if dishonest intention on the part of the defendant an injunction should ordinarily follow mere delay in bringing the matter to court is not a ground to defeat the case of plaintiff.
(13) Application for temporary injunction allowed the defendant restrained from using the Trade name "international dog world" , logo "IDW" and website www.internationaldogworld.com pending the disposal of the suit."
Rameshchandra Paliwal vs. Sima and Company ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa Hkh bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "a bare look at the two packages, which have been reproduced by the trial court in its order as well as by the appellant in its memo of appeal, it would be seen that the colour scheme of the attar-'Nikah' and attar-'Nagma' is almost identical that with a pictures of woman as Queen and Bride and that of Peacock on both. Merely because the picture of Peacock and Bride used are dissimilar, the colour scheme and the overall effect of the package, if seen, the same can easily confuse a purchaser and in those circumstances and the fact that appellant's label marks are registered and admittedly the respondent has started using the same much later in point of time, the appellant has been able to make out prima facie case for grant of injunction."
Sunil Mittal and Anr. vs. Darzi on Call ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "The entire argument of the defendant of 'generic' and 'publici juris' and of the word 'DARZI' being descriptive is nothing but an argument of technicality. The defendant itself has used the word 'DARZI', not as descriptive of its trade identified by another name but as distinctive of it amongst the class of businesses which the defendant is carrying i.e. of tailoring. Such an argument would have been understandable if Md. Ali Raza, Ms. Nazia Nabi and Sh. Avinash Kumar who set up the business of defendant had commenced business of tailoring, say in the name of 'M/s. Raza, Nabi & Kumar' and described the business carried on under the said name as "Darzis on Call". It could then have been said that the plaintiff No. 1 Sunil Mittal, by adopting the name of his tailoring business as 'THE DARZI' is not entitled to restrain other tailors, catering to section of society not familiar with the word 'TAILOR', is not entitled to restrain 'M/s. Raza, -14- Nabi & Kumar' from informing their prospective customers the services of 'DARZI' provided by them. The act of the defendant of having itself chosen the word 'DARZI', not as descriptive of its business but as a trade name, as the plaintiffs had done two decades before the defendant, is nothing but an act of dishonesty with which the Court is not only required to but bound to interdict. It is also not as if the defendant is writing the word 'DARZI' in Urdu or Hindi language, to cater to the section of the society which is unfamiliar with the word 'TAILOR'. The defendant also, as the plaintiffs, has chosen to write the word 'DARZI' in English script. The defendant is targeting the same customer base as the plaintiffs. I may in this regard also notice a shift in the society in the last few decades. Earlier, owing to limited availability of readymade garments in the country, only the rich were buying the same from foreign markets with the economically weak section of the society buying cloth and getting it tailored. Now, readymade garments are tailored in factories, mechanically with limited human skills and are available in volumes at much less price than the cost, if the cloth was to be purchased and tailoring charges given. Today, customised/bespoke tailoring, which both, plaintiffs and defendant are providing, is affordable only by the rich and high- heeled, who are generally literate and understand the word 'TAILOR' and find the word 'DARZI' 'exotic' and hence with high recall value, thereby serving very well the purpose of a trademark."
Madhubhan Holiday Inn vs. Holiday Inn Inc. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "In our considered opinion, the adoption of the words "Holiday Inn" by the appellants is ex facie fraudulent and mala fide from the very inception. The words "Holiday Inn" have been adopted by the appellant to ride on the global reputation of the respondent. The appellant was actuated by bad faith and dishonest motive. In the facts and circumstances, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in granting the injunction and decreeing the suits in order to protect the commercial goodwill and to ensure that the global business reputation of the respondent is not exploited by the appellants In a clandestine manner."
M/s. Bikanervala vs. M/S New Bikanerwala ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "Bearing in mind the legal proposition emerging -15- from the above referred authorities, I may now proceed to examine the ultimate question as to whether the mark of the plaintiff 'BIKANERVALA' is entitled to protection because of its exclusive adoption an d long user by the plaintiff and whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction. In the opinion of this Court once the plaintiff has been able to show prima facie that the plaintiff has coined and adopted his trademark 'BIKANERVALA' since 19 1 i.e. for more than 20 years and has been manufacturing and selling its edible goods for human consumption and its turnover being quite large during past few years, he has made out a prima facie case in its favor. The defendant has started using an identical trademark/tradename since 2004 only with a prefix 'NEW' which is visually, structurally and phonetically similar to the mark/tradename of the plaintiff. It has also been established that the trademarks/tradenames like 'Kabuliwala', 'Rohtakwala' et . despite being referrable to geographical terms are good trademarks and have, in fact, been registered with the Registrar of Trademarks. On that analogy and otherwise also, therefore, it can be safely held that the plaintiff's trademark/tradename 'BIKA ERVALA' is a good mark and entitled to protection. The defendant could not render any possible explanation as to why it has adopted and started using the word 'NEW BIKANERVALA' and in the absence of any plausible explanation forthcoming, it may be presued that the defendant has done so with a malafide and deceitful intention and with a view to tried upon the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff relatable to the said trademark and with the sole intention of passing off its own goods as that of the plaintiff's goods. The balance of convenience also lies in favor of the plaintiff rather than in favor of the defendant and in case interim injunction is not granted in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant may continue to pass on its goods as the good of the plaintiff which is bound to occasion into irreparable loss and injury to the plaintiff.
The net result of the above discussion is that plaintiff's application deserves to be allowed and the defendant is required to be restrained by means of an ad interim injunction and the plaintiff is entitled to interim injunction till the disposal of the suit. Accordingly, the application of the plaintiff is allowed and till the disposal of the suit the defendant, its servants, stockists, distributors, agents and retailers are hereby restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, directly or indirectly dealing in food articles for human consumption under the impugned trademark and infringing artistic work 'NEW BIKANERVALA' as appearing in annexure-B to the plaint or under -16- any other deceitful similar trademark or artistic work as that of the plaintiff's mark 'BIKANERVALA'. Needless to say that observation made herein above are only for the purpose of disposal of the application and may not be taken an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. Application stands disposed of."
Living Media India Limited vs. Jitender V. Jain and Ors. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "Any kind of prefix or suffix would not make any difference so far as the trade name or for that purpose the domain name "AAJ TAK" is concerned. It is immaterial whether the defendant has no clientele or publication in Delhi. Channel "AAJ TAK" is a National Channel. It has widespread reputation and goodwill. Adoption of similar or deceptively similar mark amounts to passing off even if it has no local physical market, goodwill or reputation of a product or person is all pervasive. It is not confined in the four walls or to a particular territory. It has to be protected wherever it is threatened or is sought to be eroded or exploited. Merely because the product or mark adopted by a rival has no circulation or sale in the territory of the plaintiff's mark or product is no defense against protection of the mark. Protection of mark is in actuality protection of reputation and goodwill. At every cost the reputation has to be protected and preserved."
Kantilal Premji Maru vs. Madan Kumar ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa cEcbZ mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "In the present case, I am convinced for the reasons which are set out in paragraph 15 that registration secured by the Defendant in the present case is fraudulent and ex facie illegal and one which shocks the conscience of the Court. There is complete copying by the Defendant of the essential feature of the Plaintiff's registered mark. The registration secured by the Defendant is in respect of identical goods/services. The fact of copying itself clearly shows that the Defendant was aware of the Plaintiff's prior registration. The essential feature of the Plaintiff's mark is bodily lifted and copied by the Defendant. Prima facie, the subsequent registration ought not to have been granted, and is ex facie illegal. It also appears that a false claim of user was made to secure the -17- impugned registration. While user is claimed from 21st September, 1994, the Affidavit in Support of user sets out the use as being from 13th February, 2012. There are serious doubts regarding the registration secured by the Plaintiff and the same appears to be fraudulent. The Defendant has not answered this question at all. All factors point out to the fact that the Defendant has illegally adopted an identical/deceptively similar mark to sell his products as if they were of the Plaintiff. Therefore, despite the registration of the impugned mark there is no legal impediment in maintaining an action in respect of infringement of a registered trade mark, and obtaining interim relief in that regard, in the peculiar facts of this case."
blds foijhr izR;FkhZ@vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr Hearst Communications, Inc. Vs. Dinesh Varyani and Anr. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa ;g fookn Fkk fd oknh vaxzsth eSxthu "COSMOPOLITAN" ftlds fd 57 ,fM'ku fudyrs Fks rFkk 32 o"kksZa ls izdkf'kr gksrh Fkh rFkk yxHkx 100 ls vf/kd ns'kksa esa forfjr gksrh FkhA ftlesa oknh us ;g Hkh vfHkopu fd;s Fks fd os eSxthu "COSMOPOLITAN" o"kZ 1902 ls ifCy'k dj jgs gSa rFkk ekdZ@'kCn "COSMOPOLITAN" Hkkjr esa fnukad 10tuojh] 1992 dks oknh ds i{k esa jftLVMZ gks pqdk FkkA izfroknh }kjk oknh ds ekdZ@'kCn "COSMOPOLITAN" dk baQzhtesaV dj "COSMOWOMAN" eSxthu izdkf'kr dh tkus yxhA ftl ij vUrfje fu"ks/kkKk pkgh x;h] ftlesa fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us nksuksa i{kksa dh cgl lqudj bl rF; ij fopkj djrs gq, fd izfroknh ekdZ@'kCn "COSMOWOMAN" dk mi;ksx o"kZ 2004 ls dj jgk gSA ftldh tkudkjh oknh dks jgh gS vkSj pkj o"kksZa rd mlus dksbZ fof/kd dk;Zokgh ugha dh gSA vr% og dksbZ vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS vkSj mldk vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k x;kA Nestle's Products (India) Ltd. Vs. P. Thankaraja and Anr. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa enzkl mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "an invented word. In short, an invented word must be different from any word in common speech, and the difference must be substantial and not skin-deep, merely. In judging whether a word is invented or not, in the sense aforesaid, the Registrar and the court must take in the word as a -18- whole in order to form a totality of impression both of sight and of sound. Too minute an analysis Of the word and its components can easily lead us astray, get the subject out of focus and reduce the inquiry to a mere word-game or spelling-bee an exercise which can have little or no relevance to the purpose of statutory registration of trade marks. For gaining a correct impression about the trade mark as an invented word it is, I think permissible for the Registrar as well as the court to rely on every material that is available to them, having relevance to the inquiry. It, however, seems to me that the matter will not get decided satisfactorily by merely consulting the dictionaries or drawing upon other people's reactions. It is essentially and ultimately for the court to form a right impression about, bringing to bear its experience of life and language and trusting to its faculty of judgment."
Marico Limited Vs. Agro Tech Foods Limited ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa nksuksa i{kksa ds e/; "LOSORB" o "LO-SORB" VªsMekdZ dk fookn Fkk] ftlesa fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "We will now examine the issue whether the expressions "LOSORB" or "LO-SORB" have achieved a secondary meaning even if "LOW- ABSORB" may not have. On this aspect one immediately feels that it is an aspect of concern with respect to the claim of the plaintiff that if partly tweaked descriptive words and expressions of English language are claimed to be coined words, the same would result in a grave and absurd situation because a non-tweaked word being a completely descriptive word will in fact be deceptively similar to the tweaked descriptive English language word or expression of which registration is obtained. Meaning thereby that because of success in getting registered a minor modification of a descriptive word or expression of the English language, a person who gets registration can prevent a purely descriptive use of a normal word or expression as found in English language dictionary on the ground that it would be identical with or deceptively similar to a registered trademark- a position which is found in the present case. Such a position, in our opinion, cannot at all be countenanced and must be struck down with a heavy hand."
Rich Products corporation and anr. vs. Indo-Nippon foods -19- limited ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "There is no exclusive right of the appellants in the word mark 'WHIP TOPPING', but only in 'RICH'S WHIP TOPPING' and the use by the respondent of 'BELLS Whip Topping' is distinctive enough, the natural corollary is that Issue No. 1 has to be answered against the appellants. There is nothing to show that the word mark 'WHIP TOPPING' separately has acquired any secondary distinctive meaning and has trans-border reputation. In fact, the learned Single Judge has rightly noticed that the appellants themselves have accepted the limitation both in USA and New Zealand with respect to the exclusive right to use the word 'TOPPING' and 'WHIP TOPPING' which form a part of the registered trademark 'RICH'S WHIP TOPPING'. In India, the appellants have even accepted the disclaimer in respect of the letter 'S' and the word ''TOPPING'. There is no deception arising from any similarity of the packaging and/or trade-dress and instructions. The word, 'WHIP TOPPING' is both 'generic' and 'descriptive' and cannot be exclusively appropriated as a trademark. Hence, the appeal is dismissed."
Living Media India Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Alpha Dealcom Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa Hkh fnYyh mPp U;k;ky; dh [k.MihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "Plaintiffs were owners of several registered trademarks. Prominent amongst these is INDIA TODAY which had been used for a weekly magazine since 1975; others are MUSIC TODAY, BUSINESS TODAY, a travel magazine "INDIA TODAY TRAVEL PLUS", an architecture and design magazine "DESIGN TODAY", and other magazines under the trade- marks SPICE TODAY and MONEY TODAY etc. The plaintiff also publishes daily newspaper MAIL TODAY. It has apparently acquired two trademarks TODAY in classes 16 and 35. The argument for temporary injunction is that the plaintiffs had acquired distinctiveness to the extent that TODAY has gained a secondary meaning in the news, publishing and media segment; it is also a well known trademark. Moreover there was no dispute about fact that, Plaintiff had been in news magazine publication business for over four decades; if it asserted -20- that it had acquired a strong reputation for the title INDIA TODAY, which was its registered trademark, court would be correct in assuming it to be so. However, does that per se along with sales figures and other financial details testifying two various brands and trademarks owned by Plaintiff, crystyllize into a right to prevent other from using a common word, "TODAY' in respect of television news channel services. Word TODAY was a common term and a dictionary one. Used in a non-contemporary sense, i.e. without reference to time and as a mark, it could well be urged that it constituted an arbitrary mark. However, its link with news was unmistakable. In this context, what acquired distinctiveness was combinatkion India Today. Single Judge was not in error in holding that, word TODAY had not acquired such distintiveness for Plaintiff (which was not using it as a stand alone mark), to make out a prima facie strong case for grant of ad-interim injuction.
Rajendra Singh Shekawat vs. Shrinath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa bl U;k;ky; dh led{k ihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "Trademarks of the Plaintiff were "Maharaja Mahansar" and Maharani Mahansar", that of the Defendant was "Mahansar D.J. Special". On the principle that right in respect of a trademark has to be taken as a whole and not as a right to separate parts thereof, it is evident that the two trademarks are not similar. The question that however remains is with regard to alleged deceptive similarity of the defendant's trademark based on its commonality in the word "mahansar"
with that of the plaintiff's trademarks "Maharaja Mahansar" and "Maharani Mahansar". For this it needs to be found whether the word "Mahansar" in the plaintiff's trademark is its essential feature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma Vs. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories AIR 1965 SC 980 has held that the identification of the essential feature of a trademark is in essence a question of fact dependant upon the evidence laid in the first instance before the trial court as regards the usage of trade. Deceptive similarity of the offending trademark based on the alleged copying of an alleged essential feature is thus plainly a question of fact so also is the question -21- whether the word "Mahansar" by itself had acquired a secondary meaning to transform it (a generic word) and give it a distinctiveness with the consequent exclusive right to its use to the registered/prior user thereof. The rights of the rivals in trade based on alleged copying/using of essential feature of trademark of one by the other are vexed questions of fact which can only be resolved in a regular trial."
Datamatics Global Services Limited Vs. Royal Datamatics Private Limited ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa cEcbZ mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& Defendant had been using word "Datamatics" as part of its trading name for last more than 19 years. Such long and continuous use, with services provided to clients and other reputed organisations in and outside India, would certainly sustain a defence of honest and concurrent use. There is nothing prima facie to suggest that Defendant had opted word "Datamatics" as part of its corporate name dishonestly or with intent to profit by, or trade on, on reputation or goodwill of the Plaintiff. There was nothing on record to indicate either that, Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's registered Trade mark or corporate name and trading style or that Plaintiff had built up so substantial a reputation and goodwill at time that, Defendant must be taken to be aware of same when it adopted word "Datamatics" for coining its corporate name. Adoption of word "Datamatics" by Defendant, in facts and circumstances of case, was bona fide and honest. In premises, Defendant was, prima facie, entitled to urge defence of an honest and concurrent user. Denial to Defendant at this prima facie stage of use of its own trading or corporate name whilst providing services, which it had done over last more than 19 years with attendant building up of goodwill and reputation, was likely to cause greater harm to Defendant than corresponding harm to Plaintiff, if temporary injunction were to be refused. Therefore Plaintiff was not entitled to equitable relief of an interlocutory injunction."
J.R. Kapoor Vs. Micronlx India ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& -22- "It is held that the word 'micro' is a common or general name descriptive of the products which are sold or of the technology by which the products are manufactured, and the users of such products are, therefore, not likely to be misguided or confused by the said word, the only question which has to be prima facie decided at this stage is whether the words 'tel' and 'nix' in the trade names of the appellant and the respondent are deceptive for the buyers and users and are likely to misguide or confuse them in purchasing one for the other. According to us, phonetically the words being totally dissimilar are not going to create any such confusion in the mind of the users."
Essel Propack Ltd., Mumbai vs. Essel Kitchenware Ltd., Kolkata and Anr. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa cEcbZ mPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "First Defendant's incorporation certificate of 2001. This showed First Defendant's use of word 'Essel' in its corporate name. There was then a copy of its Trade mark as submitted for registration, word 'Essel' written in a stylized all-caps hand script font in deep red surrounded by two concentric oval rings. There were specimen invoices of domestic sales from 6th February, 2002 onward. There were also export invoices. In respect of one of its products, a drinking glass, First Defendant had applied for a patent. There were also materials relating to publicity, events, launches and so on. Plaintiff conduct was inconsistent with its claim for exclusivity.
With full knowledge and notice of First Defendant's intentions, avowed unequivocally in First Defendant's attorneys' reply to their first cease and desist notice, Plaintiff stood by and allowed First Defendant to build its trade until Plaintiff felt it necessary to crush it. If owner of a registered Trade mark stood by and allowed a man to spend considerable amount on sales and promotional activities in order to acquire a reputation, he could not then assert his rights in order to stop business of another. Where acquiescence in infringement amounted to consent, it was a complete defence. Both parties had registrations. Between them, therefore, exclusive right to use Trade mark was unavailable one against -23- other. This was more so where a Plaintiff has not opposed or, having opposed, had abandoned its opposition to Defendant's registration application. Concurrent registration would not, prevent a Plaintiff from seeking a relief in passing off. That was an action in deceit. Its three probanda were goodwill, misrepresentation and damage to goodwill. Action in passing off was certainly maintainable, just as action in infringement was not. But, essence of 'passing off', as term itself implied, was masquerade, deception, misdirection; of three established probanda, it was misrepresentation that was keystone. This meant misrepresentation as to ownership, source and a shared origin and provenance. Party seeking an injunction should be free from blame in its approach to Court. This Plaintiff was not. Neither on equity nor on law had any case been made out for grant of an injunction."
Skyline Education Institute (I) Private Ltd. vs. S.L. Vaswani and Anr. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd& "We have thoughtfully, considered the entire matter. Before pronouncing upon the tenability or otherwise of the appellant's prayer for restraining the respondents from using the word 'Skyline' for the Institute of Engineering and Technology established by them, we consider it necessary to observe that as the suit filed by the appellant is pending trial and issues raised by the parties are yet to be decided, the High Court rightly considered and decided the appellant's prayer for temporary injunction only on the basis of the undisputed facts and the material placed before the learned Single Judge and unless this Court comes to the conclusion that the discretion; exercised by the High Court in refusing to entertain the appellant's prayer for temporary injunction is vitiated by an error apparent or perversity and manifest injustice has been done to it, there will be no warrant for exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution."
Wander Ltd. and Anr. vs. Antox India (P). Ltd. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; dh ,dyihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS -24- fd& "That even if the prior registration of the trade mark in the names of the appellants, wander Ltd. Is not necessarily evidence of prior user as contended by the Respondents Antox India (P) Ltd., the user claimed by the respondents from June, 1986 would prevail over the prima facie finding that appelants were manufacturing Calcium Gluconate Tablets under the trade-mark Cal-De-Ce from August, 1983 to June 1986. In these cicumstances it was not an appropriate case where the appellate Bench could have interfered with the discreation exercised by the learned Single Judge."
gLrxr izdj.k esa nksuksa gh i{k bysDVªhdy ok;j o dscYl dk fuekZ.k ,oa fodz; dk O;olk; djrs gSa rFkk bl O;olk; ds fy, vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ dh vksj ls VªsMekdZ ^^DEELUX PREMIUM^^ Dykl&9 VªsMekdZ vf/kfu;e ds rgr iathd`r djk j[kk gS rFkk izR;FkhZ@vizkFkhZ dh vksj ls VªsMekdZ ^^ DP DEELUX^^ rFkk ^^DEELUX POWERCAB^^ jftLVMZ gSaA mDr nksuks i{kksa dsa VªsMekdZ esa ^^DEELUX^^ 'kCn leku gSA vihykFkhZ us blh dkWeu 'kCn ¼DEELUX ½ dh vkifRr ds vk/kkj ij vius O;olk; dks izHkkfor gksuk ,oa xzkgdksa dks Hkzfer gksuk ekurs gq, {kfr gksuk crk;k gS vkSj izFken`"V;k dsl] lqfo/kk dk larqyu o viw.kZuh; {kfr dk fcUnq vius i{k esa gksuk crk;k gSA ^^DELUXE^^ 'kCn fMD'kujh ehfuax gS rFkk ^^ DELUXE^^ o ^^DEELUX^^ nksuksa 'kCnksa dh Lisfyax vyx&vyx gS] fdUrq nksukas dk mPpkj.k ,d gh gSA tSlk fd izR;FkhZ dh vskj ls izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUr esa vk;k gS fd ;fn fMD'kujh ehfuax vkSj fHkUu Lisfyax ftldk fMDlujh ehfuax ugha gks] okys 'kCnksa dk mPpkj.k ,d gh gks rks og fMD'kujh ehfuax ds 'kCn ds :i esa ekuk tkosxk vkSj mlds vk/kkj ij ml 'kCn ij ,d gh i{k dk ,dkf/kdkj ugha ekuk tk ldrkA fMD'kujh ehfuax dh Lisfyax dks viHkaz'k dj mlh mPpkj.k dk ;fn nwljk 'kCn cuk;k x;k gS rks mls Lo;atfur 'kCn ugha ekuk tk ldrkA lkjHkwr :i esa fLFkfr Li"V gks tkrh gS fd ;fn dksbZ VªsMekdZ fdlh izdkj ls leku gS vkSj mlls ,d vkSlr izKk dk dzsrk Hkze esa iM tkrk gS fd ftl eky dks og dz; dj jgk gS] D;k og ogh eky gS tks og dz; djuk pkgrk gS] ogka VªsMekdZ dk vfrya?ku ekuk tkuk pkfg,A ijUrq bl ekeys esa vihykFkhZ dk iathd`r VªsMekdZ -25- ^^DEELUX PREMIUM^^ rFkk izR;FkhZ dk iathd`r VªsMekdZ ^^DP DEELUX POWERCAB^^ gS rFkk nksuksa i{kksa ds VªsMekdZ esa ^^ DEELUX^^ 'kCn leku gSA tSlk fd Åij foospu fd;k x;k gS fd ^^ DELUXE^^ 'kCn fMD'kujh ehfuax gS ftldk viHkaz'k dj ^^DEELUX^^ 'kCn cuk;k x;k gS] ijUrq nksuksa dk mPpkj.k ,d gh gSA vr% tgka fMD'kujh ehfuax ¼ DELUXE½ rFkk viHkza'k 'kCn ¼DEELUX½ dk mPpkj.k ,d gh gS rks ogka ij 'kCn ¼ DEELUX½ dks vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ Lo;a dh [kkst ugha ekuk tk ldrkA lkFk gh VªsMekdZ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 17 ds vuqlkj ;fn VªsMekdZ esa ,d ls vf/kd Hkkx gSa rks ogka VªsMekdZ ds lEiw.kZ fgLlksa dks ,dlkFk i<uk gksrk gS vkSj mlls ;fn O;fDr Hkzfer gksrk gS rHkh baQzhtesaV ekuk tk ldrk gSA gLrxr izdj.k esa nksuksa VªsMekdZ dks i<us esa Hkzfer gksuk ugha ekuk tk ldrkA ;gh rF; izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr fHkUu&fHkUu mPp U;k;ky;ksa ,oa ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa es izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS ,oa blh vk/kkj ij fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us izFken`"V;k dsl] lqfo/kk dk larqyu ,oa viw.kZuh; {kfr dk fcUnq vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ ds i{k esa ugha ekuk gS rFkk vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us Wander Ltd. and Anr. vs. Antox India (P). Ltd. ¼mijksDr½ ds izdj.k esa vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkns'k lkE; dk vuqrks"k gS vkSj U;k;ky; ds foosdk/khu gs vkSj ;fn fopkj.k U;;ky; us vius foosd dk iz;ksxdjrs gq, vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh gS vFkok ugha dh gS rks mPp U;k;ky; dks mlesa rc rd gLr{ksi ugha djuk pkfg, tc rd fd ,slk vkns'k euekuk] LosPNkfjrkiw.kZ rFkk fof/k }kjk lqLFkkfir fl)kUrksa ds foijhr u gksA gLrxr izdj.k esa pwafd v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us nksuksa i{kksa dks lqudj vius foosd dk mi;ksx djrs gq, foLr`r vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk tkjh djuk mfpr ugha ekuk gS rFkk vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dk vkosnu vLohdkj fd;k gS] ftls euekuk] LosPNkfjrkiw.kZ vkSj fof/k ds lqLFkkfir fl)kUrksa ds foijhr ekuus dk dksbZ vk/kkj ugha gSA lkFk gh vLFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk dh LVst ij foLr`r :i ls fdlh izdkj dh fVIi.kh djus ls ewy okn dks izHkkfor gksus dh laHkkouk jgrh gSA blfy, foLr`r fVIi.kh fd;k tkuk vko';d ugha gSA vr% mijksDr foospukuqlkj] izR;FkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa ds -26- ifjizs{; esa vihykFkhZ }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"VkUrksa ds rF; gLrxr izdj.k ds rF;ksa ls fHkUu gksus ds dkj.k vihykFkhZ@izkFkhZ dks dksbZ enn ugha djrs gSaA rnuqlkj bl fofo/k vihy esa dksbZ lkj ugha ik;k tkrk gS vkSj ;g fofo/k vihy lkjghu gksus ds vk/kkj ij vLohdkj dh tkrh gS rFkk fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkyksP; vkns'k dh iqf"V dh tkrh gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dk vfHkys[k vkns'k dh izfr ds lkFk vfoyEc ykSVk;k tkosA ¼cuokjh yky 'kekZ½ U;k;kf/kifr feRry Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)