Delhi High Court - Orders
Campus Activewear Limited vs Rama Shankar Garg & Ors on 2 December, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 387/2022 & I.As. 8998/2022, 8999/2022, 9000/2022,
16072/2022
CAMPUS ACTIVEWEAR LIMITED ..... Plaintiff
Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Salman Hashmi, Mr.
Zeeshan Hashmi, Mr. Ankit Parahar,
Mr. Shekhar Kumar and Mr. Chandan
Sinha, Advocates.
versus
RAMA SHANKAR GARG & ORS. ..... Defendants
Through: Mr. Avneesh Garg, Mr. Ajeet Kumar
Srivastava and Ms. Srika Selvam,
Advocates for D-1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 02.12.2022
1. During the course of arguments, Mr. Kirti Uppal, Senior Counsel for Plaintiff, referred to screenshots of website of Defendant (page 13 of additional documents), wherein shoes advertised for sale blatantly infringe well-known/ reputed trademarks of popular sports brands besides Plaintiff's. For instance, shoes of Adidas have been shown as 'adibas', tagline of Nike
- 'Just Do It' has been used as 'Just Go It' and FILA shoes are sold under the name 'EILA'.
2. When confronted with above, Mr. Avneesh Garg, counsel for Defendants No. 1 and 2, denies the same and emphatically states that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI CS(COMM) 387/2022 Page 1 of 3 Signing Date:06.12.2022 20:57:37 Defendants' website does not advertise such products. However, Mr. Uppal has shown XTML site-map to demonstrate that said screenshots are indeed of the web pages of Defendants' website. In addition to the above, Mr. Uppal argues that Defendants are using "CAMPS" and "CAMPASS" marks which are deceptively similar to Plaintiff's "CAMPUS" mark. In support of his claims, he has produced a shoe bearing "CAMPASS" mark contained in packaging of Defendants' "CAMPS". Mr. Garg controverts Plaintiff's claims qua use of "CAMPASS" mark, however, no cogent explanation has been provided for the same.
3. Although Defendant's mark "CAMPS" was registered prior to Plaintiff's mark, Defendant's documents prima facie, do not demonstrate actual use prior to 2005. Copies of invoices and memos placed on record by Defendants (pages 88 to 192) do not depict the use of mark "CAMPS". That apart, Court has noticed that Plaintiff has registered logo and Defendants use logo. Mr. Garg differentiates Defendants' logo by arguing that it is a stylistic lettering of letter 'r'.
4. Be that as it may, the logos are being used by both parties in advertisements and products in conjunction with their primary trademarks "CAMPUS" or "CAMPS". Thus, on comparison, following manifests:
Trademark of the Plaintiff Trademark of Defendant No. 1 and 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI CS(COMM) 387/2022 Page 2 of 3 Signing Date:06.12.2022 20:57:37
5. The above-noted competing marks utilise the same colour scheme and are being used in same trade. Thus, prima facie, visual and phonetic similarity can be made out in their trade dress/ logo. In view thereof, in order to avoid any confusion, Mr. Garg states that he will take instructions if Defendants are agreeable to make changes.
6. At request, re-notify on 13th December, 2022.
SANJEEV NARULA, J DECEMBER 2, 2022 d.negi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI CS(COMM) 387/2022 Page 3 of 3 Signing Date:06.12.2022 20:57:37