Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

v. The Petitioner's marks had, since the year 2007, also been extensively advertised and had also received wide press and media coverage and featured in listings such as Reality Plus Magazine (2007), MagicBricks (2007), Franchise Connect (2008), and internship-related coverage in 2009. Advertisements issued by DGS Realtors in 2009 and 2010. Articles and press releases in prominent publications and platforms such as Business Line (10 th August 2013), World Property Journal (11th November 2014), Business Wire, The Times of India (19th October 2013), and Ace Update (26th November 2013). Also, multiple press releases dated 22nd May 2014 carried by Business Wire, India Notes, Investment Guru, Vaibhav 902-COMP-36-2022 NewsSuperFast, The Telegraph, AndhraNews and Ad Hoc News, and a property listing under the "Century 21" brand on 99acres.com (11th May 2015).

33. On the question of priority, Ms. Majumder submitted that Respondent No. 1 was not the prior user of either CENTURY 21 or C21 in India, as was evident from the agreements entered into by the Petitioner with DGS Realtors (October Vaibhav 902-COMP-36-2022 2007) and Alchemist Ltd. (December 2012), extracts from Realty Plus Magazine (September 2007), listings on MagicBricks (2007), Franchise Connect (2008), internship listings (April 2009), advertisements by DGS Realtors, and various press releases and property listings. In respect of C21, she relied upon extracts from the Petitioner's Indian website, WHOIS records of the domain c21.in, and the Petitioner's use of CENTURY 21 and C21 on its social media platforms, which she submitted was plain and clear evidence of the Petitioner's prior use in India.

E. The Petitioner has also placed on record material which clearly demonstrates that "CENTURY 21", "C21" and the logo have also acquired immense goodwill and reputation in India. The Petitioner pointed out that

(i) the Petitioner has, as early as 13th March 1989, secured registrations in India for "CENTURY 21" in Class 16, which continue to remain on the Register; (ii) obtained subsequent registrations in Class 35 for "CENTURY 21" and "C21 EDGE"; (iii) obtained registration of the domain name "century21.co.in" in January 2006, followed by "c21.in" in June 2010 and "century21.in" in July 2011, all directed toward the Indian market; and (iv) entered into franchise arrangements in India, including a 2007 sub- franchise agreement with one DGS Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and a 2012 Master Franchise Agreement with one Alchemist Ltd. (subsequently renamed as Century 21 Properties India Pvt. Ltd), granting exclusive rights to use the "CENTURY 21" marks in India; (v) from 2007 onwards, the Petitioner's Vaibhav 902-COMP-36-2022 marks received consistent advertising, listings, and media coverage on Indian platforms and in various Indian publications (both online and in print), including Realty Plus Magazine, MagicBricks, Franchise Connect, The Times of India, Business Line, World Property Journal, and other widely circulated media outlets, as well as property listings under the "CENTURY 21" brand on Indian real estate portals. F. Hence, from what is set out in paragraphs (D) & (E) above, it is clear that the Petitioner's marks "CENTURY 21" and "C21" and the logo have acquired immense goodwill and reputation, including in India, which the Petitioner is entitled to seek the benefit of and protect. Also, given what has been set out in (D) and (E) above, Respondent No. 1 is deemed to have notice of the Petitioner's statutory and common law rights in the said marks which makes the adoption of the impugned marks plainly dishonest and lacking in bona fides. In this regard, the Petitioner's reliance upon the decision in N. R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corporation and Milmet Oftho Industries v. Allergan Inc. is entirely apposite. Vaibhav 902-COMP-36-2022 G. Furthermore, and in my view crucially, the Petitioner's rights in "CENTURY 21" have been expressly recognised and protected by the Courts in India. The Petitioner has in support of this, placed reliance upon the decisions in Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Sambit Basu & Ors., Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Kangkana Das, Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Century 21 Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd., and Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Alchemist Ltd. & Anr. to point out that the Delhi High Court has recognised the Petitioner's mark "CENTURY 21" as a well-known mark. Therefore, the reliance placed by Respondent No. 1 upon the decision of Delhi High Court in Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Century 21 Main Realty Pvt Ltd., is of no relevance since the said decision firstly predates the several decisions upon which the Petitioner has placed reliance and secondly, and also the observations contained therein were merely prima facie factual observation made on the basis of the material then before the Court at the interlocutory stage. H. The Petitioner's reliance upon the decisions in Power Control Appliances v. Summet Machines Pvt. Ltd., MAC Personal Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Laverana Vaibhav 902-COMP-36-2022 GMBH, Kanshiram Surinder Kumar v. Thakurdas Deomal Rohira, and M/s. Turning Point Institute Pvt. Ltd. v. Turning Point, which holds that no amount of subsequent use can legitimise dishonest adoption, especially when the marks are identical, is entirely apposite to the facts of the present case.