Trademark Infringement and Passing Off in Ayurvedic Packaging
Background of the Case:
The case of Rasayanam Enterprises vs. Upakarma Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd. was heard before the High Court of Delhi and revolves around a dispute concerning trademark infringement and passing off. Rasayanam Enterprises (the Appellant) and Upakarma Ayurveda Pvt. Ltd. (the Respondent) are two companies involved in the sale of Ayurvedic products. The Appellant challenged an interim order that restrained them from using packaging that the Respondent claimed was deceptively similar to their own. The Respondent alleged that the Appellant’s packaging design was confusingly close to theirs, thereby infringing on their trademark rights and leading to passing off.
Issue of the Case:
At the heart of the dispute was the question of whether Rasayanam Enterprises' packaging infringed on Upakarma Ayurveda’s trademark rights or amounted to passing off. Rasayanam Enterprises argued that they had made sufficient alterations to their packaging to distinguish it from Upakarma’s, particularly in terms of color schemes and design elements. They contended that the beige color used by both parties was not distinctive enough to confer exclusivity and hence did not constitute infringement. In contrast, Upakarma Ayurveda maintained that despite the Appellant's changes, the packaging remained deceptively similar, causing a likelihood of consumer confusion.
Contentions of the Parties:
Appellant’s Contentions: Rasayanam Enterprises argued that they held a registered trademark for their new packaging, which incorporated changes sufficient to differentiate it from the Respondent's design. They claimed there was no monopoly over the use of the beige color and that their packaging did not infringe upon the Respondent’s trademark. Moreover, they asserted that the changes made were in good faith and effectively negated the chance of confusion in the marketplace.
Respondent’s Contentions: Upakarma Ayurveda countered that the Appellant’s packaging remained deceptively similar despite the changes. They argued that the alterations were superficial and done with mala fide intent to circumvent the earlier injunction order. According to the Respondent, the Appellant’s adoption of a similar brown packaging was aimed at capitalizing on the goodwill and reputation of their products, thereby misleading consumers.
The key issues addressed by the court were:
Whether the Appellant’s new packaging, particularly for their 10 gm and 20 gm products, infringed upon the Respondent’s trademark.
Whether the similarities in the packaging constituted passing off by creating confusion among consumers.
The principles governing the grant of interim relief, especially considering the likelihood of confusion and the balance of convenience between the parties during the pendency of the suit.
Reasoning and Final Decision:
After a thorough examination of the new packaging designs and applying the relevant legal principles of trademark infringement and passing off, the court reached the following conclusions:
For the 10 gm product, the court found that the changes made by the Appellant were sufficient to avoid consumer confusion. The court determined that the overall commercial impression created by the packaging was distinct enough, thereby justifying the use of the packaging by Rasayanam Enterprises.
For the 20 gm product, however, the court ruled that the packaging remained deceptively similar to the Respondent’s design. The court upheld the Single Judge’s findings that the changes were inadequate, and the likelihood of confusion persisted.
In dismissing the appeal, the court emphasized that its findings were made within the context of interim relief, and the final determination of the case would depend on the trial's outcome. The court’s decision was grounded in the principle that trademark disputes should focus on the overall commercial impression of the packaging from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. Consequently, the injunction against Rasayanam Enterprises for their 20 gm product was upheld, protecting Upakarma Ayurveda’s trademark rights in the interim period.
Case Citation: Rasayanam Enterprises Vs Upakarma Ayurveda Pvt Ltd: 18.08.2024: FAO(OS)(COMM) 80/202: 2024:DHC7131: Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru and Tara Vitasta Ganju, H.J.
Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United
Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
