Delhi High Court - Orders
M/S Inter Ikea Systems Bv vs Harpreet Kaur on 9 January, 2019
Author: Manmohan
Bench: Manmohan
14
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 6/2019
M/S INTER IKEA SYSTEMS BV ..... Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Advocate
with Ms. Tanya Varma and Ms. Pritika
Kohli, Advocates.
versus
HARPREET KAUR ..... Defendant
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
ORDER
% 09.01.2019 I.A. 198/2019 in CS(COMM) 6/2019 Keeping in view the averments in the application, the plaintiff is exempted from filing the original/clear copies of documents at this stage.
Needless to say, this order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.
Accordingly, present application stands disposed of. I.A.197/2019 in CS(COMM) 6/2019 Keeping in view the averments in the application, the plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents within a period of thirty days.
Accordingly, present application is allowed.
CS(COMM) 06/2019 Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
Issue summons in the suit to the defendant by way of e-mail, returnable for 11th February, 2019 before the Joint Registrar for completion of service and pleadings.
The summons to the defendant shall indicate that a written statement to the plaint be positively filed within four weeks of the receipt of the summons. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file a replication within two weeks of the receipt of the advance copy of the written statement.
The parties shall file all original documents in support of their respective claims along with their respective pleadings. In case parties are placing reliance on a document which is not in their power and possession, its detail and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance which shall be also filed with the pleadings.
Admission/denial of documents shall be filed on affidavit by the parties in accordance with the Delhi High Court Rules.
List the matter before Court on 14th March, 2019.
I.A. 196/2019 in CS(COMM) 6/2019 Issue notice to the defendant by way of e-mail, returnable for 11th February, 2019 before the Joint Registrar.
Present suit has been filed for permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages and delivery up.
In the plaint, it is stated that the plaintiff is the proprietor of the trade mark IKEA which is being used by the plaintiff internationally since 1943 and in India since 1994. It is further stated that plaintiff's mark is registered under various Classes under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing a wide range of well designed, functional and affordable home furnishing products and accessories, bathroom and kitchen fittings, home and office furnishing products, stationery including paper and paper articles, tools and implements under the trade mark IKEA. Plaintiff is owner of the IKEA concept and the IKEA Retail system which is franchised to IKEA retailers worldwide.
The plaintiff has been consistently ranked amongst the top 100 Global Retail Brands by brand reviewing organization such as 'Millward Brown', 'Interbrand' and 'Forbes' for the past few years. The plaintiff group is the first major single brand retailer to be given FDI approval to set up retail operations in India. It is also stated that the plaintiff Group has regularly and continuously been promoting its trademark IKEA and the goods and services thereunder through extensive advertisement, publicity, promotions and marketing and has been spending enormous amounts of money, efforts, skills and time.
It is further stated that trademark IKEA forms an essential and integral part of the domain names used by the plaintiff, i.e., www.ikea.com and www.ikea.in.
It is the plaintiff's case that in 2017, that the annual revenue generated by the plaintiff under the trademark was 38.3 billion Euros. The plaintiff also owns the IKEA Foundation which is a Charitable Foundation which aims to make life better for children living in extreme poverty.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that in December, 2018, the representatives of plaintiff came across the defendant's website www.ikihomeindia.com, which is engaged in the business of selling home furnishings and décor online under the mark IKI. She states that the defendant is advertising and promoting its infringing products under the trademark IKI on the aforesaid website.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that the defendant accepts online orders through direct requests on its website or through emails sent to [email protected], which is mentioned on the aforesaid website. She states that according to the information available on the defendant's website the defendant does not currently have a store.
Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that subsequently, the plaintiff's representative, also came across the LinkedIn profile of Ms. Harpreet Kaur, where she had described herself as the Co-Founder of IKI Home India. She states that the defendant also has active Facebook and Instagram pages which display and offer for sale the infringing products.
It is the plaintiff's case that defendant's mark IKI is phonetically, structurally and conceptually similar to plaintiff's registered trade mark IKEA and is being used in relation to identical goods as that of the plaintiff to cash in on the plaintiff's goodwill and international reputation and to reap benefit where they have not sown. She states the defendant has adopted the mark IKI with the deliberate and mala fide intent to deceive current and potential customers. She further states that the unauthorized use of the deceptively similar mark IKI is already and further likely to cause irreparable loss in the course of trade and severe detriment to the business, goodwill and market positioning of the plaintiff. She states that the defendants' misuse of the plaintiffs' mark IKEA will also result in eroding the distinctiveness and value of the same. She lastly states that if the defendant's activities are not curbed, they will succeed in prompting other third parties to copy the plaintiff's IKEA trademark, thereby leading to further dilution.
In a similar suit Inter Ikea Systems Bv Vs. Annanya Gautam & Anr. CS(COMM) 1089/2018 dated 28th September, 2018, this Court has held :-
"This Court is further of the prima facie view that the defendants' use of IKAH in their domain www.ikah.in has to be evaluated as a separate head of infringement quite apart from its use on products as a visitor to the domain could reach it by a mere misspelling of the plaintiff's trademark with no knowledge of the defendant or its products. This is the principle of "Initial Interest Confusion", which is posited on the assumption that "Infringement can be based upon confusion that creates initial customer interest, even though no actual sale is finally created as a result of the confusion. Most Courts now recognize the initial interest confusion theory as a form of likelihood of confusion which can trigger a finding of infringement." [McCarthy Volume 4, 23:6]."
Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie a case of infringement and unauthorised use is made out in favour of the plaintiff and balance of convenience is also in its favour. Further, irreparable harm or injury would be caused to the plaintiff if an interim injunction order is not passed.
Consequently, till further orders, the defendant, their employees, servants, agents and all others in active concert or participation with them are restrained from manufacturing/selling/advertising/importing or in any other way dealing in goods and providing services under the mark IKI or any other deceptively similar mark to that of the plaintiff's mark IKEA. The Domain Registrar Network Solutions LLC is directed to suspend the domain www.ikihomeindia.com during the pendency of the suit and also to furnish the full particulars including but not limited to the full name, address, account details and email address of the registrant of the said domain.
The defendant is also directed to suspend its Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/ikihome.in/ and Instagram handle @ikihomeindia till further orders.
Let the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC be complied within a period of one week.
Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
MANMOHAN, J JANUARY 09, 2019 js