Bombay High Court
Shelke Bevarages Private Ltd. vs Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal on 29 March, 2010
Equivalent citations: AIR 2010 (NOC) 1064 (BOM.), 2010 (4) AIR BOM R 249
Author: A. P. Bhangale
Bench: J. N. Patel, A.P. Bhangale
1
MMJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.8 OF 2010
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3709 OF 2009
IN
SUIT NO.2576 OF 2009
Shelke Bevarages Private Ltd. )
A Company incorporated under the )
Companies Act, 1956, and having Registered )
office at flat No.8, Ganesh Gaytri Apartment, )
291, Somwar Peth, Pune 411 011 )
through its Director ig )
Vishal Babanrao Shelke )
Age 26 years, Occ: Business and Agriculture )
R/o 291, Somwar Peth, Pune 411 011 )..Appellants
Vs.
1. Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal )
Age about 69 years in his personal & )
individual capacity and also in his capacity )
as the Karta of Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal )
(HUF) or R.M. Dhariwal (HUF) )
Occ:Business at Manikchand House", 100-101 )
D, Kennedy Road, Pune 411 001 and also )
st
At Sonawala Bldg., 1 floor, 19, Bank Street, )
Mumbai 400 001 )
2. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. )
A company incorporated under companies Act)
1956 and having registered office at )
Manikchand House 100-101 D, Kennedy Road,)
Pune 411 001 and branch office at Sonawala )
Bldg., 1st floor, 19, Bank Street, )
Mumbai 400 001 )..Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 :::
2
Mr. G. S. Godbole i/b Mr. A. B. Tajane for the Appellants
Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar Senior Advocate i/b Asia Patent &
Law for the Respondents
CORAM : J. N. PATEL &
A.P. BHANGALE, JJ
RESERVED ON : 23rd March, 2010
PRONOUNCED ON: 29th March, 2010.
JUDGMENT (Per Shri A. P. BHANGALE, J.) :
1. This appeal arises from the order dated 19.11.2009 whereby the Notice of Motion No.3709 of 2009 in Suit No.2516 of 2009 has been made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c). The facts of the case, in brief, are thus:
2. The plaintiffs (respondents herein) claimed that plaintiff No.1 Mr. Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal, in or about the year 2001 invented a method of producing Oxygen Enriched Packaged Drinking Water and an Apparatus used therefor. The said invention was fully secured by Indian Patent under the Indian Patents Act 1970. Patent No.204086 was granted under the Patent Certificate dated 26.12.2006 to Shri Rasiklal Manikchand Dariwal, pursuant to his application bearing No. ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 3 254/MUM/2002 dated 15.03.2002. According to plaintiff No.1, in the year 2002 he started processing, marketing and dealing in innovative "Oxygen Enriched Healthy Packaged Drinking Water" of a Unique Purity and Utility. The plaintiff No.1 adopted distinctive mark "OXYRICH" which was registered as a Trade Mark under the Certificate dated 01.09.2005 under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in respect of mineral, aerated and packaged drinking water and other non-alcoholic drinks, syrups and other preparations for making beverages, Beer, Ale and Porter. It is the case of plaintiff No.1 that as the Karta of R.M. Dhariwal (Hindu undivided family), he entered into registered user Agreement dated 18.10.2005 with plaintiff No. 1's company known as Dhariwal Industries Limited to grant non-
exclusive right to user company for using the trade marks "MANIKCHAND" and "OXYRICH" in conjunction i.e. "MANIKCHAND OXYRICH" in respect of packaged drinking water. Thus, the Company (the 2nd plaintiff) was authorised the user invention in consideration of royalty payable under the Royalty Agreement. Further, according to the plaintiffs, the services of a designer/artist were availed to create a label registered as copyright on 06.08.2007 in favour of Shri ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 4 Rasiklal Manikchand Dhariwal under title "MANIKCHAND OXYRICH HEALTHY DRINKING WATER". After advertising of the product, valuable goodwill and reputation accrued to it.
3. The plaintiffs further contended that in June 2009 they noticed that the defendants had commenced bottling and marketing packaged drinking water by adopting and/or using the artistic Trade Mark label having identical colour scheme, get-up, design and layout which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' artistic label and registered Trade Mark. Therefore, the plaintiffs through an Advocate's notice dated 19.06.2009 sought to restrain the defendants from infringing their registered Copy Right and Trade Mark and claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for violating intellectual property rights.
4. The defendant by its reply dated 29.06.2009 denied the contentions in the notice and contended that they are carrying on business of packaged drinking water honestly by adopting a distinctive label "OXYCOOL" as a trade mark under the Trade Mark Registration No. 01763076 in Class 32 in respect of packaged drinking mineral water.
The defendant further contended that it adopted "OXYCOOL" as a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 5 distinctive trademark for packaged drinking water like OXY-LIFE, OXYLIFE, OXYLITE, OXYPLUS, OXYWELL, OXYJAL, OXYZAL, OXYFLOW, OXYCARE, OXYSIP, OXYDUE, OXYBLUE etc., for selling packaged drinking water. It is contended that the appellants (the defendants herein) have no intention to tread upon the goodwill of the respondents/plaintiffs and that their Trade Mark "OXYCOOL" is distinct and dissimilar to the plaintiffs' product.
5. The Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that there are many traders using the common word "OXY" for selling and identifying their products of packaged drinking water. The word "OXY" has root in Oxygen; a colourless tasteless, normally a gaseous element most abundant in earth's atmosphere, which is a chemical element "O". While water is a chemical substance in liquid form composed of hydrogen and oxygen which is vital for all forms of life visualised ordinarily as represented by sky blue or light blue colour and the word "OXY" is a generic term and can not be monopoly of anybody - selling safe drinking water in packages. The Learned Counsel for appellants also contended that when the trade mark and if labels of plaintiff No.1 and defendants are visualised, font wise, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 6 script wise in their contents and phonetically also, there are variations between the two and, therefore, prospective customers or buyers cannot be confused or misled in to believing that one is the other. The Learned Counsel for the appellants, therefore, took us through the record and proceedings including the impugned order granting interim injunction and criticized the order passed by the Learned Single Judge on the ground that even otherwise the plaintiffs had not placed before the learned Single Judge any material to show that on account of the defendants selling "OXYCOOL" packaged drinking water they suffered any loss of revenue or profits. According to the Learned Counsel for the appellants, no prima facie case was made out by the plaintiffs of any reduction in income or loss of profits or irreparable loss so as to get interim injunction in their favour. The Learned Counsel submitted that the trade mark "OXYCOOL" is in no way similar to the trade mark "MANIKCHAND OXYRICH" and the Learned Single Judge ought to have noticed dissimilarities and variations - script wise, font wise and in the words used on the lable of the packaged drinking water. The terms "OXY" is a generic term which arose from oxygen ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 7 component of water and cannot be the monopoly of any trader, selling packaged - safe drinking water while the terms "RICH" and "COOL" were absolutely dissimilar and cannot confuse or mislead any prospective buyer of packaged drinking water. The Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs submitted that there are many traders who prefix "OXY" in respect of their Trade Marks and the plaintiffs cannot claim independent proprietary right or monopoly in respect of the word "OXY". The labels, colour scheme and overall get-up of the trade mark of plaintiff No.1 and that of the defendants were also different when compared overall visually and phonetically. The colour scheme of the plaintiffs' label exhibited blue and golden colour, while the colour scheme of the defendant's label exhibits blue and green colour. The plaintiffs also claimed that the label on their product have special features of 300% more oxygen and exhibits picture of a lady holding bottle whereas this was completely absent on the label of the defendants' packaged drinking water and the visual and phonetic tests applied by any man of a reasonable and ordinary prudence would indicate the dissimilarities and no buyer can be confused or misled. The Learned Counsel for the appellants also ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 8 brought to our notice that plaintiff No.1 is not himself using the Trade Mark "MANIKCHAND OXYRICH" but has assigned it for consideration of royalty payable under the Royalty Agreement by plaintiff No.2. Whether the said assignment was valid or legal with prior approval of the competent authority or not is a fact within the knowledge of plaintiff No.1 as no such material is produced by the plaintiffs before claiming interim injunction. The Learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that non-user of Trade Mark by plaintiff No.1 himself or assignment of user thereof by him in favour of the plaintiff No.2-company ought to have been taken in to consideration by the Learned Single Judge to decide the notice of motion. It is also brought to our notice that identical claim by the plaintiffs against Shilpa Beverages Pvt Ltd. was rejected by this High Court in Notice of Motion No.518 of 2009 in Suit No.261 of 2008 by the order dated 15.04.2009 (Coram: A .P .Deshpande, J.) and the appeal by Shri Rasiklal M. Dhariwal and another being Appeal No.236 of 2009 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 1st July 2009. The SLP being SLP (Civil) CC No.1148 of 2010, filed by the plaintiffs, was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 08.02.2010.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 96. The Learned Counsel for appellants made reference to ruling in J. R. Kapoor Vs. M/s. Micronics India {JT 1994 (5) SC 37}.. The Apex Court while considering the trade names 'MICROTEL' and 'MICRONIX' observed thus in paragraph No.6:
"6. Thus micro-chip technology being the base of many of the products, the word 'micro' has much relevance in describing the products. Further, the word 'micro' being descriptive of the micro technology used for production of many electronic goods which daily come to the market, no one can claim monopoly over the use of the said word. Anyone producing any product with the use of micro chip technology would be justified in using the said word as a prefix to his trade name. What is further, those who are familiar with the use of electronic goods know fully well and are not only likely to be misguided or confused merely by, the prefix 'micro' in the trade name. Once, therefore, 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. Secondly, even the visual impression of the said two trade names is indifferent. In the first instance, the respondent's trade name 'MICRONIX' is in black and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 10 white in slimmer letters and they are ensconced in designs of elongated triangles both above and below the said name. On the other hand, the appellant's trade name 'MICROTEL' is in thick bold letters in red colour without any design around. As regards the logo, the respondent's logo consists of the word 'M' in a slim letter with 'I' sporting a dot on it and drawn in the well of 'M', Below the letter 'M' in small letters is written the word 'MICRONIX' and all these letters and words are written in white in a black square in north-south direction. As against this, the appellant's logo is one letter, viz,. 'M' which is drawn in bold broad letter with its left leg slimmer than all other parts which are in thick broad brush. The letter has also white lines drawn across it which is in blue colour. There is no other letter nor is it set against any background. We are, therefore, unable to see how the visual effect of both the logos will be the same on the mind of the buyers. This being the case, we are of the view that there is not even the remotest chance of the buyers and users being misguided or confused by the two trade names and logos. Same is the case with the carton which merely reproduces both the trade names and the logos.
Having observed thus the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the interim injunction granted by the High Court.
7. In Medley Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Khandelwal Laboratories Ltd.
{2006(1) Bom.C.R. 292} this Court while dismissing the notice of motion for interim injunction, in para 4, observed thus:
4. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that by virtue ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 11 of use of the mark "CFI" and other mark "CEFO"
the plaintiff has acquired any exclusivity or right of exclusive user of the Trade Mark and thus they are entitled to an injunction for passing off action under the provisions of the Trade and Mercantile Marks Act, 1958. In respect of the passing off action it is necessary that the plaintiff must establish exclusivity of his mark and that his goods have acquired reputation by user of his mark and further that other people are not using similar mark and thus he is entitled to an injunction for such mark as against the other parties."
8. Reliance is next placed upon the decision in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Indchemie Health Specialities Pvt Ltd. [2002(3) Bom CR 186}. The Learned Single Judge of this Court while considering Trade Mark "Zanocin" and "Zenoxim", observing variations between the two, concluded that phonetically the two marks can not be said to be deceptively similar and refused to grant interim injunction considering the settled legal position that no person can claim exclusive use of the descriptive and generic terms. It would be highly undesirable to confer on one trader proprietary right over the use of an ordinary, descriptive or a generic word indicative of the nature, composition and quality of the goods as that would give him complete monopoly to exploit the word to the exclusion of others. A ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 12 word which can qualify as an exclusive mark of a trader must be distinctive so as to distinguish his goods from those of the other persons. Thus a party using a descriptive and generic term for its trade mark can not be given sole right to use the same to the exclusion of other traders commonly used words in trade and descriptive of the nature or colour or laudatory of the quality of the goods can not be permitted to be monopolised.
9. On the other hand the Learned Counsel for plaintiffs (the respondents herein) contended that the plaintiffs case is based upon infringement of their Trade Mark by the defendants and not for "passing off" action. He urged that the registered Trade Mark "OXYRICH" is the property to which plaintiff No.1 was exclusively entitled and defendants have infringed it by selling their products in the name as "OXYCOOL"
10.The Learned Counsel for the respondents relied upon the following rulings :
(a)F. Hoffmann-LA Roche & Co. Ltd. Vs. Geoffrey Manner & Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1969(2) SCC 716].::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 13
It was held that the phrase "Dropovit" is not deceptively similar to the words "Protovit" within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act, nor is it likely to cause 'confusion' as outlined in that section. The ture tests of 'Look' and 'Sound' must be used.
(b)Automatic Electric Limited Vs. R.K.Dhawan & Anr.
{1999 PTC (19) 81}
It was held that the defendants' Trade Mark was
"DIMMER DOT", and the plaintiff was 'DIMMERSTAT".
Held it does not lie in the mouth of the defendants to claim that word "DIMMER" is a generic impression.
(c) Poddar Tyres Ltd. Vs. Bedrock Sales Corporation Ltd. and Anr., {AIR 1993 BOM 237}. The learned Single Judge while granting interim injunction held in the facts of that case that the first defendant by adopting the word "BEDROCK" as part of their corporate name infringed the registered Trade Marks of which the plaintiffs were the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 14 registered proprietors.
(d) M/s. F. M.Diesels Ltd. Vs. M/s. S. M. Diesels {1193 PTC 75 (Delhi High Court)}. The Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that the Trade Mark of the defendants "SONA MARSHAL' as identical or deceptively similar to TM "FIELD MARSHAL" of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from passing off their diesel engine and parts by the Trade Mark 'SONA MARSHAL"
(e) In The Daily Calendar Supplying Bureau, Sivakasi Vs. The United Concern {AIR 1967 Madras 381}, the Madras High Court held that for infringement of copyright an exact copy of reproduction is not necessary and it depends upon the impression produced upon mind by study of picture.
(f) In M/s. Hiralal Prabhudas Vs. M/s. Ganesh Trading Company {AIR 1984 Bombay 218}, tests for ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 15 comparison of two Trade Marks in dispute were laid down and the same reads thus:
5. What emerges from these authorities is (a) what is the main idea or salient features, (b) marks are remembered by general impressions or by some significant detail rather than by a photographic recollection of the whole, (c) overall similarity is the touchstone, (d) marks must be looked at from the view and first impression of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, (e) overall structure, phonetic similarity and similarity of idea are important and both visual and phonetic tests must be applied, (f) the purchaser must not be put in a state of wonderment, (g) marks must be compared as a whole microscopic examination being impermissible, (h) the broad and salient features must be considered for which the marks must not be placed side by side to find out difference in design and (i) overall similarity is sufficient. In addition indisputably must also be taken in to consideration the nature of the commodity, the class of purchasers, the mode of purchase and other surrounding circumstances."
(g) In Ruston and Hornby Ltd. Vs. Zamindara Engineering Co. {AIR 1970 SC 1649}, the Apex Court pointed out the points of distinction in a suit for infringement of Trade Mark and passing off action.
(h) In Corn Products Refining Co. Vs. Shangrila Food ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 16 Products Ltd. {AIR 1960 SC 142}, it was observed that it is well known that a question whether the two marks are likely to give rise to confusion or not is a question of first impression. It is for the Court to decide that question and it was observed thus:
"17. We think that the view taken by Desai J., is right. It is well known that the question whether the two marks are likely to give rise to confusion or not is a question of first impression. It is for the court to decide that question. English cases proceeding on the English way of pronouncing an English word by Englishmen, which it may be stated is not always the same, may not be of much assistance in our country in deciding questions of phonetic similarity. It cannot be overlooked that the word is an English word which to the mass of the Indian people is a foreign word. It is well recognised that in deciding a question of similarity between two marks the marks have to be considered as a whole. So considered, we are inclined to agree with Desai J. that the marks with which this case is concerned are similar. Apart from the syllable "co" in the appellants mark the two marks are identical. That syllable is not in our opinion such as would enable the buyers in our country to distinguish the one mark from the other.
18. We also agree with Desai J. that the idea of the two marks is the same. The marks convey the ideas of glucose and life giving properties or vitamins. The Aquamatic case (Harry Reynolds V. Laffeaty's Ld.) 1958 RPC 387 is a recent case where the test of the commonness of the idea between two marks was applied in deciding the question of similarity ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 17 between them. Again, in deciding the question of similarity between the two marks we have to approach it from the point of view of a man of average intelligence and of imperfect recollection. To such a man the overall structural and phonetic similarity and the similarity of the idea in the two marks is reasonably likely to cause a confusion between them."
11.We have heard the Learned Counsel at length and perused the rulings cited. In our opinion, the decision as to granting or refusing of interim injunction is taken upon on three essential questions depending upon facts and circumstances, namely,
(a) Whether the plaintiffs have made out a strong prima facie case to justify grant of interim injunction ?
(b) What would be the balance of convenience if injunction is granted as prayed for at the interim stage of suit ?
(c) Whether any irreparable damage or loss may result to plaintiffs if injunction is withheld ?
The Learned Judge is always expected to address himself on these questions while deciding a motion for interim injunction.
12.Coming back to facts of the case, in our view, the get up and features ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 18 of two labels on the bottles shown to us, when compared, are dissimilar as there are some distinct features between the two and the appellant's get-up of the label can not be said to be deceptively similar to that of the respondents. No buyer, in our view, could be deceived to buy the appellants' product believing the same to be product of the respondents. The plaintiffs/respondents had not produced affidavit of even a single customer to swear or solemnly affirm that he was ever misled in to buying the appellants' product believing it to be the product of the respondents. The advertisement of the respondents' product lay more stress on purity and uniqueness of the product than a trade mark on the get-up of the label. There is no evidence to justify the interference that the appellants have copied get-up of the respondents. The colour scheme, design, description of the labels, in our view, when compared, are dissimilar considering the font and the scripts of writing. The only similarity may be blue colour back ground but that also can not constitute a special characteristic of the respondents' product, different colour combination, design and style is exhibited for labels. No prima facie case is made out to establish that due to the defendants selling ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 19 drinking water in the trade name "OXYCOOL" in the market since June, 2009 has in any way diminished the extent of sales of the plaintiffs/respondents' product "MANIKCHAND OXYRICH" packaged drinking water sold in bottles. If strong prima facie case of infringement of Trade Mark is not made out, one can not ignore the policy of law e.g. the Competition Act (12 of 2003) to promote healthy competition amongst traders and sustain it for industrial growth by controlling monopolies, preventing practices having adverse effect on competition and to serve social and economic justice, changing policy of law may be relevant to decide motion for injunction by exercise of sound judicial discretion. Likelihood of confusion or deception in the present case is ruled out as buyers of packaged drinking water belong to a class of its own, mostly belonging to middle or upper class, fairly educated using due diligence, knowing what he or she is going to buy, but may not have clear recollection as to which product he or she had bought earlier or what had been advertised for sale of drinking water in packaged bottles. The terms "Oxygen" is common and is known as H2O in Chemistry and consequently the plaintiffs cannot claim any exclusive ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 20 title to use the word "OXY" by reason of their having partly used it for labeling their product since the registration of the Trade Mark.
Phonetic and visual similarity or dissimilarity will play pivotal role to distinguish one mark from the other. Reading and comparing get-up and variations of the script style, arrangement of words, fonts on labels used by the plaintiffs and the defendants would certainly overrule the possibility of any average buyer from being deceived in to assuming connection between the "OXYRICH" and "OXYCOOL" on assuming that they enumerated from same source. Label of defendants is good and distinctly indicate that packaged drinking water do not originate from the plaintiffs but have been produced by the defendants giving their detailed address and ISI mark for quality.
Two marks when placed side by side may exhibit various differences on comparison. Marks are remembered by general or some significant details than by photographic recollection of the whole.
The plaintiff No.1 must prima facie demonstrate that the Trade Mark owned by him has acquired goodwill and reputation attached to the term "MANIKCHAND OXYRICH" (in this case) in the mind of the purchasers and furthermore that the defendants' goods have ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 21 misrepresented or confused such purchasers leading them to believe that "OXYCOOL" packaged drinking water offered by the defendants is same as that manufactured and supplied by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs must also demonstrate that due to use of the Trade Mark "OXYCOOL" by defendants, the sale of the plaintiffs' product have diminished since the defendants started selling "OXYCOOL"
13.The Trade Mark for identification which plaintiff No.1 has assigned the user of to plaintiff No.2 is "MANIKCHAND" in conjunction with the Trade Mark "OXYRICH" i.e., "MANIKCHAND OXYRICH" in respect of packaged drinking water. The said Trade Mark is associated with descriptive words proudly Indian, HEALTHY DRINKING WATER, 300% MORE OXYGEN. The advertisement claimed that for the first time ever, Manikchand Oxyrich is the only bottled water amongst about 500 brands available, which has 300% more oxygen, is enriched with essential minerals and is purified using the world's leading technologies all together to safely and completely quench thirst and energise your team. It is also claimed that it is meeting the international standards with a majority of diseases being water borne and corporates across the nation have ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 22 recognised the need for safe, pure water for their work places, to ensure their team members health. Unfortunately, most bottled water brand use only one or two purification processes, which is not sufficient to eliminate all kinds of impurities and germs. For providing complete purity and safety, the plaintiffs claimed that they have developed and rigorously tested their proprietary technology and invested in the state of the art plant equipment from USA and Switzerland to process water using Ultra Filtration for filtering out floating particles bacteria. Reverse Osmosis for removing 99.9% of the impurities including Sodium U V treatment for eliminating all micro-organisms ozonozation for completely sterilising water. The plaintiffs have claimed a revolution in packaged drinking water by presenting water super charged with 300% more oxygen and essential minerals for the first time in Asian and African countries.
Thus, while claiming that their product is a complete quencher of thirst enriched with essential minerals and more vigorous as it is super charged with oxygen available in bottles, glasses, jars of different sizes.
14.There appears no such tall claim by the defendants for selling their ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 23 product "OXYCOOL" packaged drinking water with ISI mark. No any tall claim identical to the plaintiffs version have been made by the defendants. According to the defendants, they have registered "OXYCOOL" Trade Mark under the Trade Mark Act under Registration No.01763076 in Class 32 in respect of packaged drinking water mineral.
15.The Plaintiffs are well aware of about 500 brands available in the market for selling bottled water. If we consider distinctive names "MANIKCHAND OXYRICH", the plaintiff's brand name, and "OXYCOOL", the defendants' brand name, words, phrases, symbol, logo, design, image or combination of all these elements to be considered which are associated with marketing of the respective products of the plaintiffs and of the defendants. We too with our bare eyes see distinguishing marks indicating dissimilarity in the above elements. Visually and phonetically too, script and font wise also the labels do not appears to bear resemblance to each other. The picture of a lady holding bottle is not there in the defendants' label. It is not possible to agree with the Learned Counsel for the respondents that the appellants were infringing the Trade Mark "MANIKCHAND ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 24 OXYRICH" by using "OXYCOOL" for selling their packaged drinking water. Both the Trade Marks when considered in their visual representation and phonetically in style, in juxta position to each other and compared with each other, we do not find them prima facie identical or deceptively similar so as to call it infringement of the registered Trade Mark of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs/respondents have not produced any affidavit or evidence of any customer/consumer who has been deceived or confused due to purchase of "OXYCOOL" packaged drinking water, assuming connection between it and "Manikchand Oxyrich" healthy drinking water sold by plaintiffs. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that defendants are using same Trade name as that of the plaintiffs.
Prima facie, use of word "OXYCOOL" ISI approved appear capable of distinguishing itself from the Trade Mark "MANIKCHAND OXYRICH"
along with the word, fonts and style associated with it in the label or brand name. At this stage it is not possible to conclude that defendants are using similar or identical Trade Mark as that of the plaintiffs.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 25
16.The defendants are selling packaged drinking water under trade name "OXYCOOL" which is certified ISI product with the trade mark applied for under the Registration No.01763076 in Class 32 in respect of packaged drinking water mineral, indicating authenticity of the product of the defendants, if an honest concurrent user of authentic Trade Mark is bound to be protected from an injunction sought.
17.In a suit for infringement of Trade Mark, the Trial Judge has to exercise sound judicial discretion in the matter of grant or refusal of interim relief of injunction. It is well known that due to huge pendency of cases in High Court on its original side, suit reaches for hearing after a long time. Even if interim injunction is not granted, there is an option for the trial Court to award monetary compensation to the plaintiffs who may be successful at the end of trial. But interim injunction when granted may have devastating effect on the business of the defendants as the defendants may be deprived of an opportunity to carry on their business in competition which is otherwise lawful. Interim injunction, if wrongly granted in favour of the plaintiffs, may destroy the business of the defendants ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 26 irreparably, resulting in to uncompensatable disadvantage for the defendants.
18.It is true that under the Act the registration of a Trade Mark entitles the owner thereof to the exclusive right of use of the Registered Trade Mark in respect of goods or services to be sold in market. In the present case, however, we find that there appears an agreement between the plaintiffs relating to assignment of user for consideration of Royalty payable under Royalty Agreement. No document is brought to our notice to show as to whether the Registrar under the Act was approached for approval under Section 43 of the Act before creating assignment by agreement inter se between the plaintiffs relating to user of Trade Mark "MANIKCHAND OXYRICH" as also extract from the register indicating limitation, if any, geographical area of user of the Trade Mark for selling drinking water in packaged form. The remedy of injunction is available exclusively for the registered proprietor of a Trade Mark who can injunct other traders from using his Trade Mark and may claim damages for unlawful user thereof, but in the present case it must be prima facie established that defendants are actually infringing the Trade Mark exclusively ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 27 owned by the plaintiffs, causing deception and confusion amongst the public and losses to the plaintiffs. Grant of injunction is judicial exercise of discretion upon prima facie proof. It can not be claimed as a matter of right (See: Shivkumar Chaddha Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 161). The order for interim injunction for infringement of a Trade Mark can be passed only when plaintiffs have made out a strong prima facie case in their favour to the effect that if interim injunction is not granted as prayed against defendants it would cause irreparable damage to the plaintiffs. There must be relevant prima facie material to support the exercise of discretion of granting interim injunction. The plaintiffs/respondents have not brought to our notice any document indicating diminishing profits in their account due to the alleged infringement and user of their Trade Mark by the defendants. Unless it is prima facie shown that the plaintiffs have sufferered actual losses due to the alleged unlawful acts of the defendants using or infringing their Trade Mark, grant of interim injunction can not be justified as speculative or unproven damages can not be considered.
19.In our opinion, no prima facie case is made out to establish that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 28 defendants have infringed the copyright of the artistic work titled as "MANIKCHAND OXYRICH HEALTHY DRINKING WATER" by using "OXYCOOL" Trade Mark to sell mineral water/packaged drinking water in view of the distinguishing features between the Trade marks claimed by the plaintiffs and the defendants respectively. By obtaining the Trade Mark in the name as "MANIKCHAND OXYRICH"
the word "OXY" can not be claimed as exclusively belonging to the plaintiffs. The word "OXY or OXYGEN" is used frequently without any reference to the plaintiffs or their product. The plaintiffs can not claim monopoly of such generic term. The Court cannot readily infer that use of word like "OXY" by a rival in the business as part of his trade name would be likely to deceive or create confusion. The defendants are entitled to claim benefit of even small variations in their Trade Mark from that of the plaintiffs' Trade Mark to plead that there would be no confusion in the mind of prospective buyers nor deception, as claimed.
20.For the reasons afore-stated, in our opinion, continuance of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs in the suit would cause undue ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 ::: 29 hardship and uncompensatable disadvantages for the business of the defendants in the user of their Trade Mark "OXYCOOL" and, therefore, the interim injunction is liable to be vacated. We make it clear that our observations are limited to decide this appeal and that we have not expressed any opinion about the merits of the suit which is pending for final hearing. All the contentions are left open to be decided on merits at the final hearing of the suit.
21.In the result, interim injunction granted by the impugned order is vacated. The Appeal is accordingly allowed.
(J. N. PATEL, J.) (A. P. BHANGALE, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:46:14 :::