Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs made submissions on the aspect of damages on 28th August, 2018, and has filed a computation. On 30th August, 2018, partner of the Defendant No.3, IKEA Industries, appeared and his statement was recorded.

4. The brief case of the Plaintiffs is that Plaintiff No. 1 is a company incorporated in the Netherlands. It has an Indian subsidiary, Ikea Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd - Plaintiff no.2.

5. The Plaintiffs deal with a wide range of affordable home furnishing products and have supplied several retailers, offering a full range of services. According to the Plaintiffs, the mark „IKEA‟ was coined in the year 1943 from the names of the founder, Ingvar Kamprad and the first letters of Elmtaryd and Agunnaryd, the farm and village where he grew up. According to the Plaintiffs, the first „IKEA‟ store was opened in 1958 in Sweden, and thereafter, expansion has taken place across the world. By 2009, the Plaintiffs had 267 stores in 25 countries. The mark „IKEA‟ is a registered trademark in India, both in English, Hindi and in the logo form. The total sales revenue of the Plaintiff Group for the year 2013 was close to 29.2 billion euros.

15. Before going into the merits of the case, this Court on 30 th August, 2018 had recorded the statement of Defendant No.2 in respect of use of the mark „IKEA‟. Defendant No.2 stated as under: -

"I am Defendant No.2 in the present matter. I am the son of Defendant No.1 Mr. Sham Murari, and a partner in IKEA Industries i.e. Defendant No.3. Defendant No.4, Shilpa Metal Industries is my family's business, which deals in door hardware. In the year 2014, we decided to diversify our business into automobile parts, and I approached my trademark agent M/s. Mahtta & Co., which advised me to adopt the trademark IKEA, as the Plaintiff does not deal in auto parts. On their advice, I adopted the mark IKEA in 2014. The partnership firm IKEA Industries was formed on 2nd May, 2014. VAT registration was obtained on 11th September, 2014 and the Import Export code was issued by the Government on 10 th June, 2014. Trademark application was filed on 15 th January, 2014 prior to the formation of IKEA Industries. The user detail claimed in the trademark application i.e. 1st June, 2010 is incorrect. Even the turnover stated therein is incorrect, as the said turnover belongs to Shilpa Metal Industries and not to IKEA industries. I was advised to give the sales turnover of Shilpa Metal Industries in the user affidavit filed before the Trademark Registry. Immediately when we adopted the trademark IKEA as a trading style and mark, the present suit came to be filed and an ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted on 22nd December, 2014. The products, which were lying in the premises at the time when the Local Commissioner had visited the premises, were the only products which had been procured by me from the market. The packaging of the products was affixed by us, including the trademark IKEA. The domain name ikeaindustries.com was registered by me on 7 th May, 2014. Thus, at the time when the suit was filed, there was not much sales, except the products which were lying in the premises when the Local Commissioner visited. I have already withdrawn the trademark application for the mark IKEA and have already surrendered the domain name www.ikeaindustries.com to the Plaintiff. Domain name www.ikeaindustries.org has also been surrendered to the Plaintiff. I shall abide by the permanent injunction already granted by this Court. I unconditionally apologise for wrong statements made in the user affidavit filed before the Trademark Registry, which I had done only on legal advice."

16. Thus, contrary to what is pleaded in the Written Statement, the Defendants sought to blame their lawyers for adoption of the mark IKEA. Thus, the idea for adoption of the mark „IKEA‟ is one that remains suspended between the defendants and their trade mark agents. The truth is far to seek. Either way, the derivation of the word „IKEA‟ from the word IDEA is not natural or explicable.

17. Insofar as the Plaintiff‟s priority in adoption and ownership of the mark „IKEA‟ is concerned, the Defendants do not even dispute the same. On 6th August, 2015, the Defendants had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs as costs in the suit, which was not acceptable to the learned counsel for the Plaintiffs. The decree for injunction thereafter came to be passed in respect of the mark/name and the domain name. The only issue, therefore, is in respect of damages and delivery up of the products. The Defendants also accept that Defendant No.3 was formed to manufacture and trade in auto parts. What is, however, inexplicable on the part of the Defendants is the user affidavit, which has been filed by them before the Registrar of Trademarks. In the said affidavit, it has been categorically averred by Defendant No.1 that the mark „IKEA‟ has been used extensively since 1 st June, 2010, and the sales turnover has been thereafter mentioned. This user affidavit has been filed in support of the trademark application for the mark „IKEA‟ filed by Defendant No.1 trading as M/s. Shilpa Metal Industries, Defendant No.4. The date of the application is 15 th January, 2014 and the user claimed is 1st June, 2010. Thus the Defendants did make a conscious and deliberate attempt -

19. The Defendants have clearly not been scrupulous in their conduct. The mark „IKEA‟ being an established brand, the adoption of the same and the registering of the domain name clearly shows that the Defendants were quite familiar with internet use. The explanation that the word „IKEA‟ is derived from word „idea‟ is wholly unacceptable and further reinforces that the adoption was dishonest. The illegality is further compounded by the fact that a false user affidavit was filed before the trademark registry, as claimed by Defendant No.2. It is possible that since the firm obtained its VAT registration only in September, 2014, it may have just started trading under the brand name „IKEA‟. The stock, which was seized was also substantial. The Local Commissioner‟s report also shows the clear adoption of the mark „IKEA‟ on the packaging of the Defendants‟ products. Considering the large amount of seizure made from the Defendants, it is clear that the Defendants were very serious about the use of the mark „IKEA‟, and its use by them was not an innocent or an isolated adoption. It was meant to be continuous, extensive and broad-based including on the internet.