9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (5) TMI 323 - HC - Companies LawDecree for permanent injunction - allegation of infringement of trade mark registered in the name of the Plaintiffs containing the mark SATYA - Held that - Plaintiffs have proved the facts stated in the plaint and have also exhibited the relevant documents in support of its case. Since the plaintiff s evidence has gone unrebutted, said evidence is accepted as true and correct. Feature of the defendant s mark that means SATYA is identical to the plaintiff s trade mark and the services offered by the defendant are identical to the plaintiffs, a presumption of infringement arises in accordance with Section 29(2)(c) read with Sections 29(3) and 29(5) of the Trade marks Act, 1999. This Court is also of the opinion that the triple identity test is satisfied in the present case inasmuch as the competing trade marks, products and class of purchasers are the same. Thus the plaintiff has made out a case for grant of decree as prayed in the plaint in his favour and against the defendant in terms of para 33(i), (ii), (iii) & (v) of the plaint with costs and damages to the tune of Rs.5.00 lakhs.
Issues:
- Permanent injunction for trademark infringement - Passing off - Dilution of goodwill - Unfair competition - Rendition of accounts of profits/damages - Delivery up of infringing materials Analysis: 1. Permanent Injunction for Trademark Infringement: - The plaintiffs sought a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant for selling goods under infringing marks containing "SATYA" or any deceptively similar mark. The plaintiffs had registered the mark "SATYA" under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and had been using it for their business operations for several years. The court held in favor of the plaintiffs based on evidence presented, establishing that the defendant's use of the mark "SATYA" was likely to cause confusion and deception, amounting to trademark infringement. 2. Passing Off: - The court found that the defendant's business name and style, "Staya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd.," closely resembled the plaintiffs' registered trademark "SATYA," leading to confusion among customers. Citing previous judgments, the court ruled that the plaintiffs had made a case for injuncting the defendant from using a name deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' mark, thereby preventing passing off of services and business. 3. Dilution of Goodwill: - The plaintiffs, engaged in various business activities under the mark "SATYA," demonstrated significant goodwill associated with their brand over the years. The court acknowledged the plaintiffs' substantial investments in promoting and developing their brand, emphasizing the importance of protecting their goodwill from dilution caused by the defendant's activities. 4. Unfair Competition: - The court recognized the unfair competition arising from the defendant's use of a mark identical to the plaintiffs' registered trademark. By engaging in similar business activities and using a confusingly similar name, the defendant was deemed to be unfairly competing with the plaintiffs, leading to potential harm to the plaintiffs' business interests. 5. Rendition of Accounts of Profits/Damages: - Initially seeking rendition of accounts and delivery up of infringing materials, the plaintiffs later withdrew these prayers. The court accepted the plaintiffs' decision not to press for these reliefs, thereby relieving the defendant from the obligation to provide an account of profits earned through infringing activities. 6. Delivery Up of Infringing Materials: - The plaintiffs initially requested the delivery up of all infringing materials for destruction, but later decided not to press for this relief. The court acknowledged the plaintiffs' choice and held them bound by the decision, thereby not requiring the defendant to surrender the infringing materials. In conclusion, the judgment granted a decree for permanent injunction against the defendant, emphasizing the protection of the plaintiffs' trademark rights, goodwill, and business interests. The court highlighted the importance of preventing trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair competition in safeguarding the integrity of the plaintiffs' brand and business reputation.
|
