Introduction This case involves a legal dispute between Trodat GMBH, a leading global manufacturer of stamps under the brand "Trodat," and Addprint India Enterprises. Trodat filed a suit alleging that Addprint’s "KVIK" branded rubber stamps infringed upon Trodat’s registered designs "FLASHY 6330" and "FLASHY 6903," which protect the unique shape, layout, and appearance of their stamp products.
Background and Registration of Designs Trodat’s products under the "FLASHY" brand were designed in Austria around 2015 and launched in India in 2017. Their designs are registered under the Indian Designs Act, with registration numbers 272348 and 272349. The plaintiffs claimed that their designs were distinctive, innovative, and had acquired goodwill in the market. The defendant, Addprint, entered the Indian market with stamps under the "KVIK" brand, which Trodat alleged were copies of their protected designs.
Initial Court Order and Injunction On 28 October 2022, the court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction against Addprint, restraining them from manufacturing and selling rubber stamps that were identical or deceptively similar to Trodat’s registered designs. The court observed that the overall look, layout, color schemes, and feel of the products appeared almost identical, justifying the injunction. The injunction also allowed the defendant to sell existing stock after reporting the inventory.
Dispute Over the New Design Following the injunction, the defendant developed an alternative design and proposed it to Trodat during the court-mandated mediation process. However, Trodat rejected the proposed design, asserting that it too was similar enough to infringe their registered rights. The defendant argued that their new design was sufficiently different, claiming a bonafide effort to avoid infringement.
Court Proceedings and Analysis The court’s analysis involved comparing the plaintiffs’ registered designs with the defendant’s proposed products. The court emphasized that protection revolves around the overall impression of the design, and that designs which are deceptively similar would infringe upon the registered rights, even if certain features are changed. The court referred to legal principles and previous judgments to assess whether the new proposed design fell within the scope of the existing injunction.
Defendant’s Argument and Court’s View The defendant claimed they had pioneered the "box-type" stamp design in India back in 1999, decades before Trodat’s registration, and that they had registered several similar designs. They contended that their new design was a bona fide effort to create a distinct product, and that prior use and registration of similar designs by third parties diluted Trodat’s claims. Conversely, Trodat insisted that their designs were original, registered rights, and that the defendant’s new design still mirrored the protected elements too closely.
Current Status and Court’s Direction The court noted that the design in question was retained under the injunction, and that the defendant was not permitted to launch the proposed design unless it was found to be non-infringing. The court also indicated that the dispute over the new design was ongoing, and further examination was required to determine whether it infringed Trodat’s registered rights.
Conclusion This case highlights the complexities of design rights enforcement, especially with evolving product designs and prior art. The court’s primary concern was whether the defendant’s new product design was sufficiently different from the registered designs to avoid infringement, considering the overall visual impression, prior art, and the scope of the existing injunction. The decision underscored the importance of protecting the distinctive visual features that elements of product design confer under the law.
Case Title: Trodat GMBH & Anr. Vs. Addprint India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Date of Order: 6 May 2025 Case No.: CS(COMM) 737/2022 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3336: High Court of Delhi Judge: Hon’ble Justice Mini Pushkarna
