Judgment date:02.11.2022
Suit No. CS Comm No. 461 of 2020
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Justice: Navin Chawla H.J.
Case Title: Future Bath Products Private Limited Vs Corza International & Or
Plaintiff's Trademark: CORSA
Plaintiff's business and Services: Manufacturing,
Marketing and Sale of „apparatus for lighting, heating, steam generating,
cooling, cooking, refrigerating, drying, ventilating, water supply and sanitary
purposes.
Plaintiff's Claimed user: Since 1998
Plaintiff's Actual documents of user: 2009
Plaintiff's Trademark Registration: Class
06,07,08,11,17,35
Defendant's
Trademark: CORZA
Defendant's business:Hollow Bricks, InterLock,
Floor, Pavement, Roofing, Ceramic Cement.
Defendant's Registration: Class 19
Defendant's claimed user: 2014
Injunction
was granted in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. The Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi rejected the defenses taken by the Defendant as under:
i.
The argument of defendant that the suit is not filed by properly authorized
person, was held not to be maintainable as even though the Authorization
letters have been signed by directors of the plaintiff , even though one of the
directors was authorized signatory.
ii.
Non production of Legal Proceeding certificate of Plaintiff's registered
Trademark was also held not to be material one as the Defendant it self has not
challenged the validity of registered Trademark of the Plaintiff by filing any
cancellation petition.
iii.
The Plaintiff valued the property of their Trademark only to the tune of
Rs.4000 in the deed of assignment. However this factum was also not considered
to be relevant one for grating the relief for Infringement or passing off as
factors for granting or non granting these relief as dependent upon other factors.
iv.
Trademark of the Plaintiff namely CORSA
and Trademark of the Defendant namely CORZA are similar. Hence the Defendant
was restrained from using the impugned Trademark CORZA in relation to the
product the Plaintiff deals in.
v.
However Defendant was allowed to use trademark CORZA in relation to the
products in class 19 as the Defendant was also registered Proprietor of the
Trademark CORZA in class 19 and that the Plaintiff also has not filed
cancellation petition against the same.
Ajay Amitabh Suman, [IP ADJUTOR]
IPR Advocate, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com, 9990389539
D/1027/2002
=============
Note: Information is shared in the public interest. It should not be taken as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors of understanding and presentation, including clerical errors.
=============
