Trademark Dispute Over EVEREADY JOSH Vs ‘JOSH’: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction to Eveready
Factual Background:
Eveready Industries India Limited, a leading manufacturer of batteries, flashlights, and electrical accessories, has been using the trademarks "EVEREADY JOSH" and "JOSH" since 2009 for its flashlights and torches. The company obtained trademark registrations for these marks, establishing goodwill and brand recognition. In December 2024, Eveready discovered that Mahalaxmi Industries was selling flashlights and torches under the identical mark "JOSH" through its website and third-party e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart. Eveready claimed that Mahalaxmi’s products bore a striking resemblance to its own in terms of color scheme and branding, leading to consumer confusion and dilution of its brand identity.
Procedural Background:
Eveready filed a suit before the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction against Mahalaxmi Industries to prevent trademark infringement and passing off. On 23rd December 2024, the Court issued summons to the defendants, directing them to file a written statement and reply to Eveready's application for interim relief within thirty days. However, the defendants failed to appear before the Court or file any response. The matter was later listed before the Joint Registrar on 13th February 2025, but again, no representation was made by the defendants. Given their non-appearance, the Court proceeded to hear Eveready's arguments on interim relief.
Provisions of Law Referred and Their Context:
Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, were invoked by Eveready to seek an interim injunction. The Court examined the plaintiff’s rights under the Trademarks Act, 1999, specifically regarding registered trademarks and protection against infringement and passing off. Eveready argued that its long-standing and exclusive use of the "EVEREADY JOSH"/"JOSH" marks granted it statutory protection. The Court also considered the principles of deceptive similarity, consumer confusion, and the potential impact on Eveready's brand reputation.
Judgments Referred with Complete Citation and Context:
The Court referred to previous judgments establishing the principle that even registered trademarks can be challenged if their usage leads to consumer deception. While specific citations were not explicitly mentioned in the order, the case follows precedents set in trademark disputes concerning the likelihood of confusion and deceptive similarity in branding. The Court assessed whether Mahalaxmi Industries’ use of "JOSH" created an unfair advantage by misleading consumers into associating their products with Eveready.
Reasoning of the Court:
The Court observed that Eveready had been using "EVEREADY JOSH"/"JOSH" since 2009 and had developed significant goodwill, with sales exceeding ₹331 crores under these trademarks. The similarity between Eveready’s and Mahalaxmi’s products, including identical branding elements such as the color scheme and packaging, strongly indicated an attempt to mislead consumers. Given the defendants' failure to contest the claims, the Court found that Eveready had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. The balance of convenience lay in Eveready’s favor, as continued use of the "JOSH" mark by the defendants would likely cause irreparable harm to its brand reputation and financial interests.
Decision:
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Eveready, restraining Mahalaxmi Industries and its proprietor from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products under the "JOSH" trademark. The defendants were also prohibited from using any similar marks that could create confusion among consumers. The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on 13th May 2025 before the Joint Registrar and 1st September 2025 before the Court for further proceedings.
Case Title:Eveready Industries India Limited Vs. Mahalaxmi Industries
Date of Order:17 March 2025
Case Number:CS(COMM) 1187/2024
Name of Court:High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon’ble Judge:Hon’ble Justice Amit Bansal
