9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Infringement of Plaintiff's Copyright 2. Passing Off of Goods 3. Territorial Jurisdiction 4. Balance of Convenience Detailed Analysis of the Judgment: 1. Infringement of Plaintiff's Copyright: The plaintiff, M/s. Dodha House, alleged that the defendants were infringing their copyright by using a similar art work, label, and wrapper for their product "Maingi's Todha." The plaintiff's art work and wrapper were registered under the Indian Copyright Act, and they claimed exclusive rights to use these elements. The defendants contended that their trade mark "Maingi's Todha Sweet" was distinct and had been in use for about 20 years. They denied any similarity or imitation that could cause deception or confusion. The court examined the wrappers of both products and concluded that the similarity was not sufficient to cause deception among customers, as there were distinguishable features in both wrappers. 2. Passing Off of Goods: The plaintiff accused the defendants of passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff by using a similar trade name and packaging. The court noted that while the names "Dodha" and "Todha" might sound phonetically similar, the visual differences in the packaging were significant enough to prevent confusion. The court referenced previous cases to emphasize that both visual and phonetic similarities must be considered, but ultimately found that the differences in the wrappers were sufficient to avoid confusion. 3. Territorial Jurisdiction: The defendants argued that the court at Ghaziabad had no jurisdiction to try the suit, as their business was conducted in Kot Ka Pura and not in Ghaziabad. The court acknowledged that under Section 105 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, a suit for infringement or passing off must be filed in the district where the defendant resides or carries on business. Since the plaintiff's business was also conducted in Ghaziabad, the court had jurisdiction under the Copyright Act. However, for matters related to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, the court at Ghaziabad lacked territorial jurisdiction. The court concluded that the suit could not be entertained in Ghaziabad for issues related to the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. 4. Balance of Convenience: The court considered the balance of convenience, noting that the injunction had been in place since 1992, preventing the defendants from conducting their business. The court reasoned that if the suit were ultimately dismissed, the defendants would have suffered irreparable loss, whereas the plaintiff could be compensated for any loss if the suit were decreed in their favor. The court found that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, and the injunction order could not be sustained. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the injunction order dated 17-1-1992 passed by the 1st Addl. District Judge, Ghaziabad was set aside. The trial court was directed to decide the suit based on the evidence without being influenced by the observations made in this order.
|
