The plaintiff, owner of the registered trademark CAPITAL used since 1986 for electrical goods, filed a suit alleging that the defendant had clandestinely begun marketing fans under the identical mark, thereby infringing and passing off goods as those of the plaintiff. The defendant was served but proceeded ex parte. The plaintiff’s unrebutted evidence—including trademark registration, long and extensive user, invoices, advertisements, and deceptive similarity between the parties’ labels—was accepted by the Court. Holding that the defendant had dishonestly adopted the mark to exploit the plaintiff’s goodwill, the Court restrained the defendant by permanent injunction, directed delivery-up of infringing material, and ordered rendition of accounts through a Local Commissioner.
Law Settled in the Case
- Deceptively similar trademark used on allied/cognate goods constitutes infringement and passing off; adoption of an identical mark like CAPITAL for fans was held likely to cause confusion and deception (Para 4).
- Unrebutted ex parte evidence proving long user, registration, and goodwill is sufficient to establish infringement when defendant does not contest the suit (Paras 3–4).
- Dishonest adoption inferred where defendant copies a well-established mark to trade upon plaintiff’s goodwill, entitling the plaintiff to injunction and consequential relief (Para 4).
- Court may order delivery-up of infringing goods and materials for destruction as part of protective relief in trademark infringement suits (Para 4).
- Where infringement is proved, defendant is liable for rendition of accounts, and Court may appoint a Local Commissioner for computation of profits (Para 5).
Complete Citation: Capital Meters Ltd. v. B.P. Electric, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1155 : (2002) 95 DLT 846 : 2002 AIHC 2340 : (2002) 24 PTC 382 (Del).
[Readers are advised not to treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation]
[Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi]
No comments:
Post a Comment