Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. On the basis of the above averments the suit was filed praying for relief of permanent injunction to restrain the Defendants from infringing the registered trade mark SUPERBRANDS, by using an identical trademark SUPERBRAND or any other confusingly, deceptively similar trade mark in any of the variants of the Plaintiffs trademark SUPERBRANDS as a service mark, trade name, trading style, advertisement slogan or in any other manner in relation to their goods or services. Injunction was sought to restrain the Defendants from using domain names mentioned hereinbefore which were identical and phonetically, structurally, deceptively similar to the registered trademark SUPERBRANDS and domain names of the Plaintiffs. Permanent injunction was sought against the Defendant No.1 directing it to apply to the Registrar of Companies for deletion of the expression SUPERBRAND from its corporate name and substitute the same with some other word. The other prayers were for destruction of the infringing goods, rendition of accounts and damages in the sum of Rs.50 lakhs or such larger amount as may be determined. Along with the suit the Plaintiffs filed an application IA No. 13945 of 2008 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC seeking an ad interim injunction.

3. This Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendants, jointly and severally, their principal officers, partners, directors, affiliates, employees, servants, agents, distributors, licensees, assignees, successors-in-interest, stockists and all others acting for and on behalf of the said Defendants, from using the impugned trademarks `SUPERBRAND‟ and `SUPERBRAND forever‟ (words and logo) or any other mark or logo confusingly or deceptively similar to the applicants‟ SUPERBRAND mark upon or in relation to any of the products mentioned in paras 10.1. and 10.3 of this application.

33. As far as the Plaintiffs are concerned they have been able to show presence in the international arena since 1999 at least. As pointed out in Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc (2004) 12 SCC 624, the mere fact that the Plaintiffs may not have using the mark in India during the time the infringer began using the mark, "would be irrelevant if they were first in the world market." The Defendants have not able to show that they were marketing their products using the SUPERBRANDS mark or label or logo earlier than 1999. In India the Plaintiffs‟ trade mark registration certificate and the date of incorporation of Plaintiff No.2 show use of the word mark SUPERBRANDS from October 2002. There are copies of the foreign publications of SUPERBRANDS of 2003 and earlier. The Indian publication of SUPERBRANDS is of 2004. For all of the above reasons, it is held that the Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of an interim injunction as prayed for.

34. At this stage it must be mentioned that learned counsel for the Defendants at the time of arguments sought to place on record further documents to show that the Defendants were the prior user. This Court declined the request since as it was not considered to be reasonable given that the Defendants had several opportunities to place such documents which must obviously have been in their possession even at the time of filing their written statement.

35. The order dated 31st August 2009 passed by this Court noted that the limited injunction granted on 7th November 2008 which permitted the Defendants to continue marketing the products which were already in the market by that date, did not stop the infringing activities of the Defendants. They did launch one new product i.e. Agarbati using the mark and logo SUPERBRAND Forever. Of course the Defendants 2 and 3 have now undertaken before the court that they will not hereafter use the mark and logo SUPERBRAND Forever on any new product. However, given the conduct of the Defendants and the dishonest attempts by them even after receiving the cease and desist notice to use the mark SUPERBRAND as part of the corporate name of Defendant No.1, and as domain names on the internet, and to continue marketing their products by blatantly imitating the word and style of writing of the Plaintiffs‟ registered mark and logo and the resultant deception and confusion it is likely to cause in the trade, this Court is of the view that the balance of convenience in granting an interim injunction as prayed for by the Plaintiffs is in favour of the Plaintiff. In other words the Plaintiffs have made out a case for grant of an interim injunction against the Defendants using the mark and logo SUPERBRAND Forever in respect of all their products including the 48 products listed in para 8 of IA No. 11129 of 2009 (which is identical to the list in para 2 of the preliminary objections out in the written statement).