9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Prima facie case for grant of injunction. 2. Validity of the learned Judge's decision to dismiss the injunction applications. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Prima facie case for grant of injunction: The appellant, a manufacturer of fertilizers and flowering stimulants since 1985, claimed that they have been using the trademark BOOM PLUS since 1987, which is registered under Trademark No. 473179 and renewed periodically. They also have other associated trademarks. The appellant argued that the respondent's use of the trademark SUPER BOOM infringes on their registered trademark and is likely to deceive consumers, particularly illiterate agriculturists, into believing that the products originate from the same source. The respondent countered that their trademark SUPER BOOM is not an imitation of the appellant's trademarks and that the word "BOOM" is a common dictionary word, not distinctive to the appellant's products. They claimed to have been using the mark for several months and argued that there is no likelihood of confusion. The court noted that the appellant has been using the trademark BOOM PLUS since 1987 and presented documents supporting their claim. The respondent admitted to using the trademark SUPER BOOM for only a few months and did not provide substantial evidence of prior use or advertisement expenditure. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., emphasizing that phonetic similarity can constitute trademark infringement. The court found that the appellant had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, as the similarities between the trademarks were likely to cause confusion among consumers. 2. Validity of the learned Judge's decision to dismiss the injunction applications: The learned single Judge dismissed the injunction applications, stating that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trademarks. However, the appellate court disagreed, emphasizing the importance of phonetic similarity in determining trademark infringement. The court cited Section 29(5) of the Trademarks Act, which states that using a registered trademark as part of a trade name constitutes infringement. The court found that the respondent's use of the trademark SUPER BOOM was deceptively similar to the appellant's trademark BOOM PLUS and constituted an act of passing off. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, which highlighted the importance of granting injunctions to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff. The court concluded that the appellant had a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction. The court set aside the learned Judge's order and granted the injunction as claimed by the appellant, stating that the conclusion was prima facie for the disposal of the injunction applications. Conclusion: The appellate court found that the appellant had established a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The court emphasized the importance of phonetic similarity and the likelihood of consumer confusion. The learned Judge's decision to dismiss the injunction applications was set aside, and the court granted the injunction in favor of the appellant, ensuring that the respondent was restrained from using the trademark SUPER BOOM until the disposal of the suit.
|
