9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court 2. Prior Use and Registration of Trademark 3. Claim of Passing Off 4. Effect of Classification of Goods 5. Grant of Injunction Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Civil Court: The defendant's preliminary objection that no interim injunction could be granted due to the pendency of a petition for removal of the plaintiff's trademark was rejected. The court held that civil courts retain jurisdiction to pass interim interlocutory orders under sub-section (5) of Section 111 of the Trade and Merchandise Act. 2. Prior Use and Registration of Trademark: The plaintiff claimed to be the leading manufacturer of cleansing agents and the proprietor of the trademark "CLEANZO," registered since 1947. The defendant opposed this, alleging prior use of the trademark since 1947 by his father. The court found the plaintiff to be the registered user of the trademark, with credible evidence such as advertisements, invoices, and a Test Certificate from 1952. The defendant's evidence was deemed insufficient and self-contradictory. 3. Claim of Passing Off: The court noted that the plaintiff's suit was both for infringement of the trademark and for passing off. The defendant's use of a similar label and the word "Cleanzo" was found to be an attempt to create confusion and deceive consumers. The court emphasized that in passing off actions, the defendant's intent to deceive is crucial and highlighted the similarity in the labels and the use of the word "Cleanzo" as evidence of this intent. 4. Effect of Classification of Goods: The defendant argued that their goods fell under a different class (Class 5) than the plaintiff's (Class 3), thus no injunction should be granted. The court found this argument unsubstantial, noting that both products were cleaning agents and the classification of goods was irrelevant in determining the similarity of goods in a passing off action. The court emphasized that both products had the same nature, purpose, and trading channels. 5. Grant of Injunction: The court upheld the learned Single Judge's decision to grant an injunction, restraining the defendant from using the trademark "Cleanzo" or any deceptively similar mark. However, the appellate court modified the order to further restrain the defendant from using the word "Cleanzo" in any form, including with the prefix "Praveen," as it was likely to create confusion and deceive consumers. Conclusion: The appeals resulted in the plaintiff's appeal being allowed and the defendant's appeal being dismissed. The defendant was further restrained from using the trademark "Cleanzo" in any form. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the plaintiff's established trademark and preventing any likelihood of consumer confusion or deception.
|
