2011 (12) TMI 689 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Plaintiff's claim of trademark infringement and passing off.
2. Determination of whether "GE" and "GENERAL ELECTRIC" are well-known marks.
3. Evaluation of the defendant's use of the mark "GE" and its potential to cause confusion or deception.
4. Plaintiff's entitlement to an injunction and other reliefs.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Plaintiff's claim of trademark infringement and passing off:
The plaintiff, a large corporation with significant global presence, alleged that the defendants were using the trademark "GE" for their products, which could mislead consumers and members of the trade. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' use of "GE" was aimed at exploiting the plaintiff's established reputation and goodwill.

2. Determination of whether "GE" and "GENERAL ELECTRIC" are well-known marks:
The court examined the extensive use, recognition, and advertising of the trademarks "GE" and "GENERAL ELECTRIC" by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's trademarks were recognized globally, including in India, and had been in use for over 100 years. The court noted the plaintiff's significant advertising expenditure and the numerous trademark registrations held by the plaintiff in various countries. The court concluded that "GE" and "GENERAL ELECTRIC" are well-known marks within the meaning of Section 2(ZG) of the Trademarks Act.

3. Evaluation of the defendant's use of the mark "GE" and its potential to cause confusion or deception:
The court considered whether the defendants' use of "GE" constituted infringement of the plaintiff's well-known marks. The court held that even if the impugned mark is not an exact replica, it can still constitute infringement if it is visually, phonetically, or otherwise similar to the registered trademark. The court found that the defendants' use of "GE" was likely to cause confusion among consumers, who might associate the defendants' products with the plaintiff. The court emphasized that the core distinctive feature of the plaintiff's trademark is the letters "GE," and any use of these letters in a similar manner would constitute infringement.

4. Plaintiff's entitlement to an injunction and other reliefs:
The court granted an injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark "GE" or any similar mark. The court noted that the plaintiff was entitled to seek an injunction even if there was no evidence of actual use of the trademark by the defendants, as the mere application for registration of the trademark by the defendants gave sufficient cause of action to the plaintiff. However, the court did not grant any other reliefs, such as damages, due to the lack of evidence of actual use of the mark by the defendants.

Conclusion:
The court decreed an injunction with proportionate costs, restraining the defendants from using the mark "GE" or any mark identical or similar to the plaintiff's registered trademarks "GENERAL ELECTRIC," "GE (monogram)," and "GE." The court did not grant any additional reliefs due to the absence of evidence of actual use of the mark by the defendants.