Case Title:Eveready Industries India Ltd. Vs. United Timber Works
Date of Order: 21st February 2025
Case No.: CS(COMM) 152/2025
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
Fact
Eveready Industries India Ltd. filed a suit against United Timber Works and others, seeking a permanent injunction for trademark infringement, passing off, unfair trade practices, rendition of accounts, and damages. The plaintiff, a well-known brand in India since 1905, has been using the "EVEREADY" trademark for batteries, flashlights, and other goods. It alleged that the defendants had unlawfully used the "EVEREADY" mark for plywood products and had filed trademark applications for deceptively similar marks. The plaintiff discovered the defendants’ infringing activities in February 2025 through their website, which prominently displayed the mark "EVEREADY." The plaintiff claimed that such usage misled consumers and diluted the goodwill of its well-established brand.
Issue
The primary issue before the court was whether the defendants’ use of the "EVEREADY" mark for plywood products amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. The court had to determine whether the defendants’ actions created consumer confusion, unfairly exploited the plaintiff’s goodwill, and violated the plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The court observed that Eveready’s trademark had been in continuous use for over a century and had been declared a well-known mark by the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2020. The judge noted that the defendants had no legitimate explanation for adopting an identical mark and were likely attempting to mislead consumers. The court found that the balance of convenience lay in favor of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if the defendants were allowed to continue using the "EVEREADY" mark. The defendants’ actions constituted a clear case of trademark infringement and passing off.
Decision of the Judge
The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Eveready Industries, restraining the defendants from using the "EVEREADY" mark or any deceptively similar mark for their products. The court clarified that the defendants were free to conduct business under any other name that was not identical or confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s trademark. The matter was scheduled for further proceedings, and the defendants were directed to file their responses.
