Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.3. The Plaintiff has been operating its structural steel tubes and pipes business under its "APOLLO" marks since the year 1999, and has over the course of last 25 years secured numerous registrations, which includes significant number of registrations in Class 6, details whereof are as follows:

3.4. The Plaintiffs have been using the expression "APL" along with the name "APOLLO". In the Defendants' device mark " ", there is no use of the expression "APL" and therefore, the two trademarks are distinguishable. Furthermore, Plaintiff's trademark "APL APOLLO" is filed for 'pipes and tubes' in Class 6 and Defendant No.1's trademark " " is filed for 'TMT Metal Bar' in Class 6. The product range for which the two marks are being utilised is different, which demonstrates that the competing products are distinct.

5. The Plaintiff has been actively engaged in the structural steel tubes and pipes sector under the APOLLO brand since 1999. Over nearly a quarter-century, the Plaintiff has diligently accumulated a substantial portfolio of trademark registrations across India. These registrations encompass the wordmark "APOLLO", "APL APOLLO", and various other derivatives, spanning several relevant trademark classes. Notably, earliest registration in Class 6 dates back to the year 2000. This extensive collection of registrations prima facie proves the Plaintiff's longstanding commitment to and association with the APOLLO trademarks within the industry. Some of the registrations for APOLLO based trademarks, in favour of the Plaintiff Dassault Systemes S.E. and Anr V Automobile Corporation of Goa Limited and Ors 2022: DHC:4229- DB in class 6, have already been extracted in the previous section of the order.2 The Plaintiff has thus conclusively established statutory rights in the "APOLLO" trademark and its variants. These registrations, including those in Class 6, specifically cover structural steel tubes, pipes, and related products. This extensive portfolio of trademarks not only underscores Plaintiff's claim to the mark "APOLLO" but also strengthens their legal standing in relation to the goods specified above. By virtue of the registrations and the provisions of the Trademarks Act, 1999, the Plaintiff has exclusive right to use the trademark "APOLLO". However, in order to determine the infringement claim, the court must also discern whether a thread of similarity weaves together the trademarks at issue, blurring the lines of distinction or suggesting deceptive similarity or resemblance that has the potential to cause customer confusion.3 This evaluation hinges on analysis of the visual, structural, and phonetic similarities between the marks in question. Moreover, additional factors such as the class of users, the distinctive character of the registered trademark, the average consumer's imperfect recollection, and the overall impression created by the mark are critical factor for determining similarity between the trademarks. Therefore, a detailed comparison of the competing marks is essential and is discussed in the following paragraphs.

7. The next issue that needs consideration is the identity/similarity between the Plaintiff's goods i.e., steel pipes and tubes, aluminized steel tubes, black steel, tubes, hot dipped and pre-galvanised steel tubes, fence tubes, structural steel, hollow sections, Apollo TriCoat, Flat/ Oval Capsule Sections, Hand Rail, D-sections, Elliptical sections, narrow sections, taper section and the goods of the Defendants, i.e. TMT bars, steel angles, rounds, squares, and flats etc. To determine this issue, factors such as the nature and composition of the goods, their respective uses, and the channels through which they are marketed and sold are all pertinent. The Plaintiff currently does not manufacture TMT bars under the "APOLLO" trademark. However, the goods to which their current registered marks are applied are similar to the Defendants' goods as they both are evidently engaged in 'construction materials'. Thus, despite the Plaintiff's lack of registration of the "APOLLO" marks for TMT bars, the Defendants' use of the trademark is for allied and cognate goods i.e, steel-based products, including but not limited to TMT bars, steel angles, rounds, squares, and flats, etc, which places their goods within the same sector as the Plaintiff's goods i.e, construction material. The Plaintiff further highlights the Defendants' ambition to expand its range under the Impugned Marks, as evidenced by the Defendants' website. This expansion isn't limited to the variants of 'TMT bars' but extends to other steel products that directly compete with the Plaintiff's standing, suggesting a comprehensive strategy to enter and compete in the steel industry under the Impugned Marks. Supporting this claim, a screenshot from the Defendants' website (www.apollotmt.com) and a comparative analysis of the product offerings by both parties are presented, highlighting the overlapping identities in the goods offered by the Plaintiff and the Defendants: