Judgment date: 10.11.2022
Case No. FAO (COMM) 88/2021
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Justice: Vibhu Bakhru and Amit
Mahajan H.J.
Case Title: HS Sahni Vs Mukul Singhal
Appellant's Trademark: M.G. and MGI
Appellant's business and Services: manufacture and
trade of wide range of automobile fittings, control cables and spare parts and
other allied goods
Appellant's Claimed user: Since 1989
Respondent’s Trademark: MG CABLE
Defendant's business:
manufacture and trade of
automobile components such as clutch cables, front brake cables, rear brake
cables, choke / starters etc.
Respondent's claimed user: 1996
HS Sahni is referred to as the Appellant and Mukul
Singhal is referred to as the Respondent.
The
Hon’ble Division Bench was pleased to grant injunction in favour of the
Respondent/Cross Appellant and against the Appellant on the following grounds:
i.
Though Appellant claimed to be prior user of the Trademark since 1989 and filed
invoice since 1989, still on the said invoices, several other brands namely
RONAK, ATOMAX , WIREPOOL , DATSUN etc were mentioned.
ii.
The invoice of actual use of MG and MGI was since the year 2017.
iii.
Appellant’s Trademark application was subsequent to that of the Respondent.
iv.
Respondent produced invoice since 2001.
v.
In the year 2013, the Respondent obtained copyright registration. In the year
2019, the Appellant also for obtaining identical label.
vi.
Thought Appellant was registered proprietor in class 12 and Respondent was
registered proprietor in class 06.
vi.
Court held that classification of goods are not criteria for deciding the
similarity of the products.
vii.
This registration granted to the Respondent in class 06 would inure to the benefit
of the Respondent.
viii.
The Appellant has failed to prove any use prior to 2017. While Respondent has
established user since 2001.
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.
=============
