Case Title:Ozone Spa Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mr. Arvind & Ors.
Date of Order: 11th February 2025
Case No.: CS(COMM) 875/2022
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1213
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna
Fact
Ozone Spa Pvt. Ltd. filed a suit against Mr. Arvind and others seeking a permanent injunction to restrain them from infringing its registered trademarks, engaging in unfair competition, and misrepresenting their services using deceptively similar marks. The plaintiff has been operating under the trademarks "OZONE," "O3," and "ozO3ne" since 2001 and has several trademark and copyright registrations for these marks. The plaintiff operates luxury health clubs, gyms, and spas across multiple cities in India and has gained significant goodwill and reputation. In October 2022, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants were operating gyms and fitness centers under the infringing mark "O3 Gym & Fitness Centre," which closely resembled the plaintiff’s brand. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants' use of identical and deceptively similar marks for similar services misled consumers and diluted its brand.
Issue
The key issue before the court was whether the defendants' use of the mark "O3" for gym and fitness services constituted trademark infringement and passing off. The court had to determine whether the defendants' marks were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered marks and whether such use was likely to cause confusion among consumers.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
The court found that the plaintiff had been using the "OZONE" and "O3" marks continuously since 2001 and had acquired significant goodwill in the health and fitness industry. The defendants’ marks were visually and phonetically similar, and they operated in the same industry, targeting similar consumers. The court observed that the defendants' branding, layout, and signage closely resembled the plaintiff’s marks, leading to a likelihood of confusion. The defendants initially denied infringement but later undertook to discontinue the use of the "O3" mark and rebranded as "A3." The court held that the defendants had intentionally adopted the impugned marks to benefit from the plaintiff’s reputation. Reports from Local Commissioners confirmed the unauthorized use of the infringing marks and the presence of infringing materials at the defendants’ premises.
Decision of the Judge
The court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the "O3" mark or any deceptively similar mark in relation to gym, fitness, and spa services. The court also awarded damages of ₹10 lakh against Defendant No. 1 and ₹5 lakh against Defendant No. 4, to be paid within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would apply. The court directed the drawing up of a decree and disposed of the suit.
