Bridgestone Corporation Vs Merlin Rubber:25 March 2025:CS(COMM) 254/2023: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
The plaintiff, Bridgestone Corporation, a Japanese company established in 1931 and globally renowned for manufacturing tyres and rubber products under the registered trademark ‘BRIDGESTONE’, alleged that the defendant, Merlin Rubber, was manufacturing and selling butyl tubes and other rubber goods under the mark ‘BRIMESTONE’, deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark. In April 2022, the plaintiff discovered infringing listings online, followed by a market investigation revealing continued sales even after a takedown request. On 28 April 2023, the court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner, who seized large quantities of infringing goods. The defendant failed to file a written statement, stopped appearing after September 2023, and was proceeded ex parte in February 2024. Evidence was led by the plaintiff through its witness, and no cross-examination was conducted.
The core dispute concerned trademark infringement and passing off, with the plaintiff alleging that the defendant’s mark ‘BRIMESTONE’ was structurally, visually, and phonetically similar to ‘BRIDGESTONE’, used for identical goods, amounting to deliberate and mala fide infringement.
The court held in favour of the plaintiff, finding clear infringement and passing off. A decree of permanent injunction was granted restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark or any deceptively similar mark. The court awarded compensatory damages of Rs. 34,41,240/- and directed that actual costs be determined by the Taxation Officer.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Disclaimer: This information report is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
