Shivam Hardware Store Vs Century World

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 14.07.2022
CASE: FAO (COMM) 102/2022
NAME OF HON'BLE COURT: High Court of Delhi
NAME OF HON'BLE JUDGE: The Honourable Justices Shri Vibhu Bkhru+ Amit Mahajan
CASE TITLE: Shivam Hardware Store Vs Century World

What is the effect of use of a registered Trademark by third party in a smaller font in addition with other words?

Or in other words , is it possible for third party to use registered Trademark of other party in smaller font in conjunction with other words?

One of such fact was there before the Hon'ble Division Bench, High Court in Appeal bearing No. FAO (COMM) 102/2022 titled as Shivam Hardware Store Vs Century World, which was dismissed vide Judgement dated 14.07.2022 passed therein.

Appellant was the Defendant and Plaintiff was the Respondent in the subject matter Suit.

Plaintiff's registered Trademark was CP CENTURY. Defendants Trademark was SHIVAM CENTURY.

Besides the registered Trademark, the Plaintiff was also having copyright registrations.

Word CENTURY was displayed in bigger font in the Plaintiff's Trademark while word SHIVAM was displayed in smaller font on the Defendant's Trademark.

Both the parties were in similar business.

The Plaintiff was engaged in manufacturing and marketing of Hardware Goods, Kitchen Hardware and Cabinet Hardware including Lock of Metal etc.

While the Defendant was engaged in manufacturing and marketing of modular kitchen accessories in the state of Delhi NCR.

In the subject matter Suit, interim injunction was passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. The subject matter Appeal was filed by the Defendant against grant of Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

Though SHIVAM was written in larger font on the Defendant's Trademark, still court held that essential part of Plaintiff's and Defendants Trademark was CENTURY.

The Court rejected the argument of the Defendant that no exclusivity can be granted to the term CENTURY , being normal dictionary word, on the ground that the Defendant has miserably failed to establish that the Trademark CENTURY is common to Trademark.

Trademark of the Plaintiff CP CENTURY and Trademark of the Defendant was rightly held in suit as similar. The Defendant was unable to point out any glaring perversity in the order assailed.

The Hon'ble Division dismissed the Appeal following the principles of settled in Wander Ltd. and Another. Vs Antox India P. Ltd.: 1990 Supp SCC 727, as there was no apparent perversity in the order assailed, here no interference is called for.

Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
ajayamitabh7@gmail.com
9990389539