Introduction:
The case before us is a dispute between Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar and Arun Shamrao Mardhekar, involving allegations of trademark infringement and passing off in the business of selling 'Shev Chiwda', a traditional snack. The plaintiff, Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar, filed a suit in the District Court, Satara, seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant, Arun Shamrao Mardhekar, for using a deceptively similar name and packaging for his product, which the plaintiff claimed was causing confusion in the market and diluting his brand's goodwill.
Background:
The plaintiff, Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar, runs a business of Shev Chiwda under the brand name "Shubhlaxmi Chiwda Ritkawali" and has a registered trademark. The defendant, Arun Shamrao Mardhekar, started selling a similar product with packaging and branding that the plaintiff alleged was too similar to his own. The plaintiff filed an interim application (Ex.5) seeking to restrain the defendant from using the name "Shubhlaxmi Chiwda Ritkawali". The District Judge granted a temporary injunction against the defendant, restraining him from using certain names and packaging that were deemed to infringe on the plaintiff's trademark.
Relevant Provision of Law Applicable:
The case primarily involves the Trade Marks Act, which governs the registration and infringement of trademarks in India. The specific sections of the Act that are relevant to this case deal with the rights of a registered trademark holder and the prohibition of trademark infringement and passing off.
Issue of the Case:
The main issue in the case is whether the defendant's use of a particular name and packaging for his Shev Chiwda product constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff's trademark and amounts to passing off. The plaintiff claims that the defendant's actions have led to market confusion and have tarnished the reputation of his brand.
Reason of Court:
The court, upon hearing the case, found that the plaintiff had not used his registered trademark on his product packaging, which raised doubts about the validity of his infringement claims. The court also noted that the defendant had undertaken to change the color of his packaging from red to blue, which would help differentiate his product from the plaintiff's. Additionally, the court considered the fact that the defendant had applied for and received new trademarks, which further complicated the issue of infringement.
Final Decision:
The Commercial Appeal from Order No. 13 of 2023 was allowed by the court, and the order passed by the Trial Court was quashed and set aside.
Case Citation: Santosh Vishnu Mardhekar Vs Arun Shamrao Mardhekar: 03.09.2024: COMMERCIAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 13 OF 2023: 2024:BHC-AS:35381-DB: Bombay High Court: A.S. Chandurkar & Rajesh S. Patil, H.JJ
Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United
Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
No comments:
Post a Comment