Aditya Borkar Vs Sachin Ganesh

Maintainability of Infringement Suit Based on Trademark Application

Introduction:

The issue of the maintainability of an infringement suit based solely on the filing of a trademark application by the defendant is a nuanced legal question. This article delves into the matter, drawing insights from a case before the Bombay High Court involving the trademark 'BOROPLAST.'

Facts of the Case:

The plaintiff, having used the trademark 'BOROPLAST' since 2000 in various categories, filed a suit against the defendant upon discovering the latter's trademark application for 'BOROPLAST.' Notably, the defendant had not yet introduced any vendible articles into the market under this mark.

Legal Basis for the Suit:

The crux of the plaintiff's argument rested on the maintainability of an infringement suit when a defendant has merely applied for trademark registration, without any tangible products in the market. Citing the precedent of Analco (India) Pvt Ltd vs Navodya Exim Pvt Ltd, the plaintiff contended that such a suit is indeed maintainable.

Precedent and Legal Position:

The mentioned case, decided on January 23, 2014, established a precedent supporting the plaintiff's claim. The court in Analco held that the filing of a trademark application itself could be sufficient grounds for maintaining an infringement suit. This decision reflects a broad interpretation of trademark rights, extending protection even before the actual use of the mark in commerce.

Court's Observations and Decision:

In the BOROPLAST case, the Bombay High Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of the plaintiff. The court found that the defendant had blatantly imitated the 'BOROPLAST' trademark by applying for an identical mark, thereby infringing on the plaintiff's registered trademark. This decision underscores the court's willingness to afford protection based on the mere filing of a trademark application.

The concluding Note:

The maintainability of an infringement suit based on a defendant's trademark application, even in the absence of actual market presence, is a legal terrain where precedent plays a pivotal role. The BOROPLAST case, aligning with Analco, highlights a proactiveness by the judiciary in safeguarding trademark rights. This legal stance serves to deter potential infringers and underscores the importance of early intervention to protect intellectual property.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:28/11/2023

Case No. COM IPR SUIT (L) NO.31504 OF 2023

Neutral Citation No:2023:Mad:5222

Name of Hon'ble Court: Bombay High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: R.I.Chagla, HJ

Case Title: Aditya Borkar Vs Sachin Ganesh

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, informations, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, 

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, 

Mob No: 9990389539

Kuraray Co Limited Vs Assistant Controller of Patent

The Interplay Between Priority Dates and Publication Dates in Patent Law

Abstract:

This article delves into the intricate relationship between priority dates and publication dates in patent law, drawing insights from a notable case before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras concerning the Patent Application "FILM FOR PLANT CULTIVATION." The case, involving the rejection of Patent Application No.2394/CHENP/2013, explores the pivotal question of whether a cited prior art, D2, with a publication date subsequent to the claimed priority date, should be considered as prior art.

Introduction:

The determination of the validity and novelty of a patent application is significantly influenced by the interplay between its priority date and the publication dates of relevant prior art. This dynamic was brought to the forefront in the case under consideration, where the Appellant's patent application faced rejection based on the cited prior art D2.

Background:

The Appellant filed Patent Application No.2394/CHENP/2013, derived from PCT Application No.PCT/JP2011/070596, titled "FILM FOR PLANT CULTIVATION." The controller of patents issued an order on 30.12.2019 rejecting the application, prompting the Appellant to challenge this decision before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras.

Priority Date Significance:

The crux of the matter lay in the priority date of the subject matter patent application, set at 28.09.2010. The cited prior art, D2, presented a publication date of 28.10.2010, placing it chronologically after the priority date. This temporal misalignment raised a fundamental question: could D2 be deemed as prior art?

Legal Analysis:

The Hon'ble High Court of Madras engaged in a nuanced legal analysis, recognizing the fundamental principle that for a document to qualify as prior art, its publication date must precede the priority date of the claimed invention. 

In this instance, the court astutely observed that the publication date of D2, being 28.10.2010, was subsequent to the priority date of 28.09.2010. Consequently, the court held that D2 did not qualify as prior art and should be disregarded in the evaluation of the patent application.

Implications and Precedent:

This decision establishes a precedent emphasizing the critical role of the priority date in determining the relevance of prior art to a patent application. The court's ruling underscores the chronological hierarchy between priority dates and publication dates, reaffirming that only documents predating the priority date can be considered as prior art.

The Concluding Note:

The case of "FILM FOR PLANT CULTIVATION" serves as a compelling illustration of the meticulous consideration required when assessing the interrelationship between priority dates and publication dates in patent law. The court's discerning analysis reaffirms the importance of temporal alignment in evaluation of patent applications.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:29/11/2023

Case No. MA (PT) No.47 of 2023 

Neutral Citation No:2023:Mad:5222

Name of Hon'ble Court: Madras High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy, HJ

Case Title: Kuraray Co Limited Vs Assistant Controller of Patent

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, informations, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, 

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, 

Mob No: 9990389539

Vicky Aggarwal versus Sumeet Agarwal

Trademark Rights Post-License Termination

Introduction:

The recent judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the trademark dispute concerning the mark BACHPAN sheds light on the critical legal aspects surrounding the fate of a trademark user after the termination of a license user agreement. This article explores the implications of such terminations and the court's stance in safeguarding the rights of the licensor.

Background:

Since 2004, the plaintiff has been offering play school services across India under the trademark BACHPAN. With registered trademarks dating back to 2003 and holding copyrights, the plaintiff established a significant presence in the market. A Franchisee Agreement was executed with the defendant, granting them the right to operate play schools under the BACHPAN mark, contingent on payment of license fees. The agreement naturally expired on January 31, 2021, and due to default in fees, it was not renewed, leading to the defendants losing their right to use the registered trademarks.

Legal Analysis:

The central issue revolves around the defendants' alleged continued use of the plaintiff's trademarks post the agreement's expiry. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in granting the interim injunction, reaffirmed the settled legal position that an ex-licensee is not entitled to use the licensor's trademark after the termination of the license user agreement.

The court's observations:

1. Prima Facie Infringement: The court acknowledged a prima facie case of trademark infringement by the defendants. The continued use of the registered trademarks by the ex-licensee, post-agreement termination, was seen as a violation of the exclusive rights held by the plaintiff.

2. Passing Off: The court also noted an attempt by the defendants to pass off their services as those of the plaintiff. Despite losing the right to use the trademarks, the defendants were allegedly misleading the public by presenting themselves as affiliated with the plaintiff.

The Case Law:

The interim injunction granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi serves as a powerful reminder of the legal remedies available to licensors when faced with trademark infringement and passing off by ex-licensees. This judgment further solidifies the principle that the expiration or termination of a license user agreement extinguishes the rights of the licensee to use the licensor's trademarks, reinforcing the sanctity of contractual obligations in the realm of intellectual property law.

The Concluding Note:

This case underscores the importance of adhering to the terms of license agreements and the legal consequences that follow termination. It emphasizes the court's commitment to protecting the rights of trademark owners against unauthorized use by former licensees.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:17/11/2023

Case No. CS(COMM) 715/2023

Neutral Citation No:N.A.

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Case Title: Vicky Aggarwal versus Sumeet Agarwal

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, informations, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Muneer Ahmed Vs Registrar of Trademarks

Analyzing Distinctiveness in Trademarks

Introduction:

The legal landscape surrounding trademark registration often involves nuanced considerations of distinctiveness. This article delves into a recent case where an appeal was filed against the rejection of a trademark application for "BHARAT with device of Brush" in relation to painting brushes, artistic brushes, and roller brushes. The Registrar of Trademarks had rejected the application on the grounds of the mark being highly descriptive and indicative of the intended purpose of the specified goods. The High Court of Delhi, in its decision, examined the distinction between a trademark inherently lacking in distinctiveness and a trademark lacking in distinctiveness.

I. Background of the Case:

The appellant's trademark application was rejected by the Registrar on the basis that the mark, comprising the word "BHARAT" with a distinctive brush device, was highly descriptive and may serve to designate the quality of the applied specification. The Registrar contended that the inclusion of a brush in the trademark indicated the intended purpose of the specified goods, making it non-registrable.

II. Inherently Lacking in Distinctiveness:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi noted that there are marks that are inherently lacking in distinctiveness, rendering them incapable of distinguishing the goods or services to which they relate. This category may include commonly used words that inherently lack distinctive character, such as "and," "the," or "it." These marks are incapable of functioning as source identifiers from the outset.

III. Lacking in Distinctiveness:

In contrast, the court identified another category of marks that are "lacking in distinctiveness." These marks are commonly found or used in connection with goods or services, making them incapable of serving as source identifiers. For a mark to fall into this category, there must be specific reference in the Registrar's order identifying the mark as being "common to the trade."

IV. Analysis of BHARAT with Device of Brush:

The High Court analyzed the trademark "BHARAT with device of Brush" as a whole, emphasizing that it is a device trademark and must be considered in its entirety. The court rejected the notion that the mark was descriptive merely because it included a paint brush. The distinctive style of the word "BHARAT," combined with the unique elements of the brush device, was deemed to be distinctive and not lacking in distinctiveness.

V. Conclusion and Remand:

Concluding that the trademark, seen as a whole, was clearly distinctive, the court set aside the impugned order of the Registrar. The matter was remanded to the Senior Examiner of Trademarks for further examination, recognizing the distinctive character of the mark and its potential eligibility for registration.

In essence, this case underscores the importance of considering trademarks as integral wholes, particularly when they involve distinctive elements that contribute to their overall distinctiveness. The analysis also highlights the critical distinction between marks that are inherently lacking in distinctiveness and those lacking distinctiveness due to common usage in the trade.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:17/11/2023

Case No. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 20/2023

Neutral Citation No:2023:DHC:8404

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: C Hari Shankar, HJ

Case Title: Muneer Ahmed Vs Registrar of Trademarks

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Emerald Enterprises Vs Emerald Valves Private Limited

Ex Parte Injunctions in Passing Off Cases:

Introduction:

In a recent legal development, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi addressed the pivotal question of granting an ex parte injunction in an action for passing off, specifically focusing on the common law rights associated with the trademark EMERALD. The case involved both the Plaintiff and the Defendant being registered proprietors of the trademark EMERALD, leading the Hon'ble Single Judge to assess the relief of passing off against the Defendant.

Facts of the Case:

The Plaintiff, a prominent manufacturer of various products, claimed extensive use of the EMERALD trademark since 1990, particularly in the manufacturing of valves, hot water generators, expansion tanks, humidifiers, vacuum degassers, and cooling tower filtration systems. On the other hand, the Defendant, incorporated on June 24, 2022, specialized in manufacturing and selling valves such as butterfly valves, globe valves, and check valves. The Defendant applied for the mark 'EMERALD' on July 7, 2022 as proposed to be used basis, for which with registration was granted.

Legal Analysis:

Despite both parties being registered proprietors of the EMERALD trademark, the Court emphasized the settled legal position that the prior user of the mark is entitled to protection, irrespective of recent registrations held by competitors. The recent registration of the Defendant did not diminish the likelihood of an injunction being granted. The Hon'ble Single Judge established a prima facie case in favor of the Plaintiff based on the following grounds:

i. Identity of Trademark and Trade Name:

The Court noted that the impugned trademark and trade name of the Defendant were identical to those of the Plaintiff.

ii.Identity of Goods and Customers:

The goods offered by both parties were identical, and the customer class served was the same.

iii.Long Prior Use:

The Plaintiff's extensive prior use of the EMERALD mark for valves, dating back to 1990, weighed significantly in their favor.

iv.Arbitrary Nature of the Mark:

The Court highlighted that the EMERALD mark was entirely arbitrary, and the Defendant's recent adoption was not bona fide.

Precedent from Supreme Court:

The decision drew upon the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah (MANU/SC/0763/2001). The Supreme Court emphasized that in cases where passing off is established, an immediate ex-parte injunction should be granted. Additionally, the Supreme Court recommended the appointment of Local Commissioners to ensure that infringing products are not permitted to be sold.

The Concluding Note:

This decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi sets a noteworthy precedent, affirming that even in passing off actions, the Court should grant an ex parte injunction when a prima facie case exists in favor of the Plaintiff. This underscores the importance of protecting the rights of the prior user and ensuring that potential action of passing off action is promptly addressed, aligning with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:21/11/2023

Case No. CS(COMM)817/2023

Neutral Citation No:NA

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Prathiba M Singh, HJ

Case Title: Emerald Enterprises Vs Emerald Valves Private Limited

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Scrum Alliance Inc Vs Mr. Prem Kumar and Ors

Significance of Registered Certification Trademarks

Introduction:

Certification trademarks (CTMs) hold a special place in intellectual property law as they signify that the goods or services meet specific standards set by the certifying authority. This article analyzes a legal case involving a prominent Scrum certification organization ("the Plaintiff") and a defendant accused of infringing on the Plaintiff's registered certification trademark.

Background:

The Plaintiff claimed to be the leading Scrum certification organization, having certified a significant number of practitioners globally, with a substantial presence in India. The core of the dispute revolved around the Plaintiff's registered certification trademark, which included the CSM (Certified ScrumMaster) and CSM Logo in a Sun Motif. The Defendant, while holding a registration for the trademark CSM since 2012, had not obtained certification status for the mark.

Legal Framework:

The case hinged on Section 75 of the law, which defines infringement of CTMs. According to this section, infringement occurs when an unauthorized party uses an identical or deceptively similar mark in the course of trade, in connection with goods or services covered by the registered CTM. In this context, the court examined whether the Defendant's adoption of the CSM Logo in a Sun Motif constituted an infringement of the Plaintiff's registered certification trademark.

Court's Analysis:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi carefully scrutinized the facts of the case and applied the legal provisions governing CTMs. The Plaintiff's claims were based not only on their certification activities but also on the registered certification trademark. "The court observed that the Defendant could not provide a satisfactory explanation for adopting the "sun" motif, leading to the inference that the idea was borrowed from the Plaintiff's registered trademark."

Infringement and Borrowed Sun Motif:

The court's decision to grant an interim injunction pertaining to relief of infringement against the Defendant was grounded in the finding that the Defendant's use of a similar "sun" motif in connection with the CSM Logo amounted to infringement. The absence of a credible explanation from the Defendant strengthened the court's position that the motif had been borrowed from the Plaintiff's registered certification trademark. This highlights the importance of protecting not only the literal elements of a trademark but also its conceptual aspects, such as motifs and designs.

Relief of Passing Off:

While the court granted an interim injunction on the infringement claim, it declined to provide relief on the passing off aspect. This decision underscores the court's specific focus on the registered certification trademark and its role in preventing unauthorized use by adopting a similar or identical mark.

The Concluding Note:

"The case underscores the significance attached to registered certification trademarks in protecting the rights of certifying organizations." The court's analysis of infringement, coupled with the consideration of borrowed motifs, sets a precedent for upholding the distinctiveness and integrity of certification trademarks.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:21/11/2023

Case No. CS Comm 700 of 2021

Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:8346

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge C Harishankar, HJ

Case Title: Scrum Alliance Inc Vs Mr. Prem Kumar and Ors

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539

Bennett, Coleman and Company Vs E Entertainment Television LLC

Additional Documents and Conflict between IPD Rules 2022 and Commercial Court Act 2015

Abstract:

This legal article delves into the recent decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi regarding the taking on record the additional documents in trademark cancellation petitions before the Commercial Court sitting in IP Division. The conflict arises between the provisions of the Commercial Court Act 2015 and the IPD Rules 2022, as the court determines the entitlement to file additional documents in such cases.

Introduction:

The focal point of the dispute revolves around the invocation of Order XI Rule 1(10)2 of the CPC by the Registered Proprietor in a trademark cancellation petition. The petitioner contests this move, asserting that the application is improperly framed under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act and should adhere to Rule 7 of the IPD Rules 2022.

The Petitioner's Stand:

The petitioner's resistance is multi-faceted. Firstly, they argue that Rule 7(ii) mandates the filing of all documents with pleadings, which was asking to Rule 2(i)4 in Chapter VII of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. Secondly, they assert the absence of a provision in IPD Rules akin to Order XI Rule 1(10) of the CPC, which enables the filing of additional documents post-Written Statement. Thirdly, they contend that Rule 7(xiii) of the IPD Rules does not permit the incorporation of provisions from the CPC or the Commercial Courts Act that are inconsistent with the IPD Rules.

The High Court's Rationale:

The Hon'ble High Court, in rejecting the petitioner's arguments, relies on the pivotal Rule 7(xiii) of the IPD Rules. The court emphasizes that this rule explicitly extends the applicability of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, to original petitions, including rectification petitions under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act. Consequently, the court asserts that allowing additional documents aligns seamlessly with the IPD Rules, and such inclusion does not contradict any provisions therein.

Analysis and Implications:

This decision underscores the dynamic interplay between procedural rules and legislative enactments. The court's reliance on Rule 7(xiii) to bridge the gap between the IPD Rules and the Commercial Courts Act sets a precedent for harmonizing procedural frameworks in complex legal scenarios. 

The Concluding Note:

In resolving the conflict between the IPD Rules 2022 and the Commercial Court Act 2015, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi provides clarity on the admissibility of additional documents in trademark cancellation petitions. 

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:16/11/2023

Case No. C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 86/2022

Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:8274

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge C Harishankar, HJ

Case Title: Bennett, Coleman and Company Vs E Entertainment Television LLC

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, 

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, 

Mob No: 9990389539

Dr Reddys Laboratories Vs Smart Laboratories Pvt Ltd

Initial Interest Confusion in Pharmaceutical Trademarks

Introduction:

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi recently addressed the nuanced concept of initial interest confusion in a trademark dispute involving medicinal products. The case involved the Plaintiff, the registered proprietor of the trademark AZIWOK since 1994, and the Defendant, who sought registration for the trademark AZIWAKE in 2022 as proposed to be used basis.

Phonetic Similarity and Defendant's Argument:

The Defendant contended that their mark AZIWAKE was distinct from the Plaintiff's AZIWOK. However, the court dismissed this argument, emphasizing the phonetic similarity between the two marks.

Prescription by Doctors and Consumer Confusion:

A crucial aspect of the case was the contention that since the products were sold under a doctor's prescription, confusion was unlikely. The court, however, reasoned that doctors might not be aware of the subtle distinctions between AZIWOK and AZIWAKE, especially when both are associated with azithromycin. The potential for confusion was deemed to exist not only at the doctor's level but also during the dispensing and purchasing stages.

Application of Initial Interest Confusion Test:

The Delhi High Court applied the test of initial interest confusion, focusing on the moment when a consumer first encounters the defendant's mark. The court highlighted that if, at this stage, the consumer is likely to wonder whether the mark is the same as the one previously seen or associated with the plaintiff's mark, the likelihood of confusion exists under Section 29(2)(b).

Impression at the Initial Interest Stage:

The court emphasized that the impression formed in the consumer's psyche during the initial encounter is crucial. Even if further information might dispel confusion, the initial doubt is sufficient for establishing infringement. The consumer, upon encountering both AZIWOK and AZIWAKE, was deemed likely to experience wonderment or confusion, leading to a finding of "likelihood of confusion" under the relevant legal provision.

The Concluding Note:

In granting an interim injunction against the Defendant, the Delhi High Court demonstrated a strict application of the initial interest confusion test. The decision underscores the significance of the consumer's initial impression, emphasizing that any doubt or confusion at this stage is legally relevant. 

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:16/11/2023

Case No. CS(COMM) 744/2023

Neutral Citation No: 2023:DHC:8214

Name of Hon'ble Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge C Harishankar, HJ

Case Title: Dr Reddys Laboratories  Vs  Smart Laboratories Pvt Ltd

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, 

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, 

Mob No: 9990389539

ITC Ltd. Vs Britania Industries Ltd-DB

The Crucial Role of Trade Dress in Trademark Disputes:

Introduction:

The recent legal precedent concerning the dispute over the trade dress of "Good Day Butter Cookies" and "Sunfeast" underscores the significance of trade dress in trademark litigation. This case serves as a stark reminder that, even when brand names and trademarks appear dissimilar, the overall trade dress can be a decisive factor in determining the likelihood of confusion and infringement. This article provides a detailed analysis of the legal implications of the decision, emphasizing the importance of prior use and the judiciary's commitment to upholding the rights of businesses in the competitive marketplace.

Background:

The recent legal case in question revolves around the issue of trade dress in the context of trademark violation. The Plaintiff, claiming prior use of the trade dress associated with "Good Day Butter Cookies," since 1997 filed a suit against the Defendant, alleging that their product, marketed under the trademark "Sunfeast," employed a strikingly similar trade dress since 2020. The crux of the matter lies in the meticulous design and combination of elements on the packaging, creating a deceptive similarity between the two products.

Interim Injunction and Challenge:

The Hon'ble Single Judge, after due consideration, granted an interim injunction in favor of the Plaintiff, restraining the Defendant from using the allegedly violating trade dress. The Defendant, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed the injunction before the Hon'ble Division Bench.

Concurring Findings of the Division Bench:

The Hon'ble Division Bench, upon careful scrutiny, concurred with the Single Judge's findings. Despite apparent differences in brand name, trademark, and the visual elements of the biscuit, the Bench noted a meticulous design on the part of the Defendant. This design, when combined in the wrapper, resulted in a striking similarity to the Plaintiff's trade dress. The Bench acknowledged the Plaintiff's prior use of the color scheme, getup, and combination of biscuit and butter imagery, further strengthening the case for trade dress infringement.

Trade Dress as a Decisive Factor:

Traditionally, trademark disputes have often focused on the similarities or differences in brand names and logos. However, this case highlights a paradigm shift in the legal landscape, signaling that the overall trade dress of a product can be a decisive factor in determining infringement. The court's recognition of the meticulous design and combination of elements in the Defendant's product, despite differences in individual components, emphasizes the holistic approach taken by the judiciary in assessing the potential for consumer confusion.

Deceptive Similarity and Market Confusion:

The Division Bench, crucially, emphasized that a casual glance at the products revealed a high degree of similarity. The Bench expressed concerns about potential confusion in the market, particularly given the nature of the product—cookies. In a retail environment where products are often displayed on shelves in close proximity, the ordinary consumer could be easily deceived. The Bench concluded that the Defendant's product was deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff, leading to a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

Prior Use and Logical Attribution:

The Division Bench unequivocally stated that the Plaintiff, being the prior user of the trade dress, had a legitimate claim to protection. Moreover, the Bench attributed the alleged similarity not to mere coincidence but to a logical act of copying and dishonest adoption on the part of the Defendant. This attribution played a pivotal role in dismissing the appeal, reinforcing the principle that a defendant cannot evade an injunction merely by asserting differences in trademarks when the trade dress is found to be substantially similar.

The Concluding Note:

The recent legal precedent in the "Good Day Butter Cookies" and "Sunfeast" case marks a significant development in trademark law, highlighting the growing importance of trade dress . The decision highlights that even when brand names and trademarks appear dissimilar, the overall trade dress can be a decisive factor. In cases where prior use is established, and a likelihood of confusion exists, courts are likely to grant injunctions to prevent the deceptive similarity of products in the market.

The Case Law Discussed:

Date of Judgement/Order:08/11/2023

Case No. O.S.A.(CAD).Nos.134 to 138 of 2023

Neutral Citation No: N.A.

Name of Hon'ble Court: Madras High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjay V.Gangapurwala and B.Bharatha Chakravarthy, HJ

Case Title: ITC Ltd. Vs Britania Industries Ltd-DB

Disclaimer:

Information and discussion contained herein is being shared in the public Interest. The same should not be treated as substitute for expert advice as it is subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,

IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney

Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com,

Mob No: 9990389539