Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

20. It is averred in the plaint that Plaintiffs are a part of the well-known and reputed "Minda Group of Companies" and have widespread and enviable presence in the automobile and spare parts sector. Plaintiffs are leading manufacturers of automotive components including but not limited to industrial oils, lubricants, engine oils, etc., and transact business under the house mark/trade name MINDA and its variants and derivatives such as /SPARK MINDA and / / UNO MINDA.

21. It is pleaded that Plaintiffs' group was founded in the year 1958 under the flagship name MINDA as a proprietorship and subsequently, various news companies were incorporated. The marks /SPARK MINDA and /UNO MINDA were adopted in the year 2011 by two brothers of the family, respectively. The mark/name MINDA forms an inseparable and essential part of the Plaintiffs' trade name as well as all registered/un-registered trademarks. The trademark MINDA and its variants, coined and adopted over a period of time have been successfully registered, the details whereof are furnished in para 3 of the plaint. Plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 have also obtained trademark registrations in various other countries. The trademarks so mentioned are valid and subsisting. Plaintiff No.1 has filed an application dated 21.06.2021 for inclusion of the trademark MINDA and Plaintiff No.2 has filed an application dated 24.12.2021 for inclusion of trademark UNO MINDA in the list of well-known trademarks, which applications are pending before the Trade Marks Registry. Application for inclusion of the mark SPARK MINDA in the list of well-known trademarks filed by Plaintiff No.3 is also pending.

22. It is further averred that Plaintiffs have been highly vigilant in protecting their statutory and common law rights over the trademark MINDA and its formatives and have initiated actions against several third parties for violation of their rights. The trademarks MINDA, SPARK MINDA and UNO MINDA have been protected by this Court in a number of proceedings as brought forth in the plaint.

26. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs are the registered proprietors, prior users and exclusive owners of the brand name MINDA and its formative trademarks. Use of any trademark which bears identity or similarity to the Plaintiffs' mark and name MINDA is in violation of their coveted statutory rights. It is submitted that the impugned marks/labels of the Defendant are visually and phonetically identical or at least bear a high degree of similarity with the Plaintiffs' registered and prior used marks/labels MINDA, , /SPARK MINDA and /UNO MINDA. It is argued that the marks have been slavishly copied, with the clear intent to represent to the public that the Defendant is associated with or is an extension of the MINDA group. The adoption and use of the impugned marks is clearly to ride on the enormous and formidable reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiffs for monetary gains. The products for which the impugned marks have been copied, i.e. "oils and grease" are similar to the products of the Plaintiffs, i.e. "engine oils" and the trade channels and the customer base are also common, thus satisfying the triple identity test. The other goods sold by the Defendant are also similar to the other goods provided by the Plaintiffs, broadly categorised as automobile parts including fuel systems, fuel hoses and canisters for which a case of allied and cognate goods is also made out. Plaintiffs are manufacturing engine oils, the packaging of which bears the trademark SPARK MINDA both in the form of words and logo. The use of the impugned marks by the Defendant for similar goods is bound to cause deception and confusion amongst the purchasers and, therefore, amounts to infringement of the Plaintiffs' trademarks as well as passing off.