- The plaintiff, Bridgestone Corporation, sought a permanent injunction against M/S. Merlin Rubber for trademark infringement, passing off, and related reliefs.
- The plaintiff's trademark, 'BRIDGESTONE', is registered for rubber tires and tubes in India and over 130 countries.
- The defendant was found to be selling butyl tubes under the mark 'BRIMESTONE', which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark.
Case Set Up by the Plaintiff
- The plaintiff, established in 1931, is a global manufacturer and seller of tires and rubber products under the 'BRIDGESTONE' trademark.
- The plaintiff operates websites providing information about its business and products.
- The 'BRIDGESTONE' trademark is derived from the founder’s surname and has been registered in India and worldwide.
Proceedings in the Suit
- The Court issued an ex parte ad interim injunction against the defendant and appointed a Local Commissioner for search and seizure.
- Mediation between the parties was unsuccessful.
- The defendant's right to file a written statement was closed, and the defendant was proceeded against ex-parte after failing to appear.
Analysis and Findings
- The plaintiff proved ownership of the 'BRIDGESTONE' trademark, and the defendant was found to be using the infringing mark 'BRIMESTONE' for similar goods.
- The defendant’s mark 'BRIMESTONE' is visually and phonetically similar to the plaintiff’s 'BRIDGESTONE'.
- The defendant has taken unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff's trademark.
Relief
- A decree of permanent injunction was passed against the defendant.
- A decree of damages of Rs. 34,41,240/- was passed in favor of the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff shall appear before the Taxation Officer to determine the actual costs incurred in the litigation.
Case Title:Bridgestone Corporation Vs. Merlin Rubber
Date of Order: 25th March 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 254/2023
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
No comments:
Post a Comment