The plaintiff, M and B Engineering Limited, is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling various roofing products across India and globally since 2001. The plaintiff is the proprietor of the trademark ‘PROFLEX’ and its associated label marks, holding multiple registrations in Class 19 and claiming copyright over the associated trade dress. The plaintiff promotes its products through its official website and third-party platforms, and its trademarks have acquired considerable goodwill and reputation.
The plaintiff discovered in early 2023 that Defendant No. 1, Mr. Laxman D. Nagare, was using the mark ‘Proflex Roofing System’ in relation to similar roofing products. A cease-and-desist notice was issued on 18.12.2023, followed by a reminder on 27.03.2024. Although Defendant No. 1 assured discontinuation of use, the plaintiff found that the infringing usage resumed in April 2025 through the defendant’s website and e-commerce platforms operated by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
The plaintiff filed the suit seeking permanent injunction, damages, and other reliefs for infringement, passing off, and copyright violation. The court noted that the impugned mark adopted by Defendant No. 1 prominently used the word ‘PROFLEX’, a coined term already registered in the name of the plaintiff. The addition of the words ‘Roofing System’ was found to be insufficient to distinguish the infringing mark from the plaintiff’s trademarks. The court observed that the defendants were operating in the same industry, through similar trade channels, and targeting the same customer base, thereby enhancing the likelihood of confusion.
The court found that Defendant No. 1’s actions appeared to be aimed at exploiting the goodwill associated with the plaintiff’s trademarks. The similarity was so close that an average consumer with imperfect recollection could easily be misled. It was also considered that the continued unauthorized use would result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff and deceive the public.
The court concluded that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and granted an ad interim ex parte injunction restraining Defendant No. 1 from manufacturing, marketing, selling, or advertising any roofing products using the mark ‘PROFLEX’ or any deceptively similar mark.
No comments:
Post a Comment