YC Electric Vehicle Vs Saksham Trading Company

Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction in Favor of YC Electric Vehicle Against Saksham Trading Company

In a decisive ruling, the Delhi High Court has issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle, a prominent manufacturer of electric vehicles, against Saksham Trading Company. The plaintiff, a partnership firm established in 2014, has made significant strides in the electric vehicle industry, particularly with their trademarks 'YATRI' and 'YC' used for E-Rickshaws.

Background and Claims

YC Electric Vehicle alleged that Saksham Trading Company had blatantly copied their trademarks 'YATRI' and 'YC' by adopting the confusingly similar marks 'YATRA' and 'YS' for identical goods. The plaintiff contended that this unauthorized use by the defendant was a direct infringement of their trademarks and constituted an attempt to capitalize on YC Electric Vehicle's established market presence and reputation.

In addition to the current use of 'YATRA' and 'YS', the defendant had also filed multiple trademark applications (nos. 6284673, 6284674, 6284675, 6284676, and 6284677) for 'YATRA' formative marks on a 'proposed to be used' basis. YC Electric Vehicle promptly filed oppositions against these applications, demonstrating their commitment to protecting their intellectual property rights.

Court's Findings:

Upon reviewing the case, Hon'ble Judge Anish Dayal determined that the plaintiff had presented a compelling prima facie case for the grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction. The court recognized the potential for irreparable harm to YC Electric Vehicle's business and brand if the injunction was not granted. Furthermore, the balance of convenience was found to favor the plaintiff, given the likelihood of consumer confusion and damage to their market reputation.

Implications and Analysis

The court's recognition of the plaintiff's established use of 'YATRI' and 'YC' since 2014 reinforces the importance of protecting well-known trademarks from infringement and unfair competition.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court's decision to grant an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of YC Electric Vehicle against Saksham Trading Company is a critical step in upholding trademark rights and preventing unfair competition. As the case progresses, it will be closely watched by stakeholders in the electric vehicle industry and the broader business community for its implications on trademark law and brand protection.

Case Title:YC Electric Vehicle Vs Saksham Trading Company

Judgment/Order Date: 27.05.2024

Case No. CS(COMM) 442/2024

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Anish Dayal, H.J.

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written by:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com

Ph No: 9990389539

Hell Energy Magyarorazagkft Vs National Internet Exchange of India

Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction to Hell Energy in Trademark Infringement Case

Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of Hell Energy Magyarország Kft., the registered proprietor of the trademark "HELL" in Class 32, in respect of energy drinks. The plaintiff holds multiple international registrations for their marks, establishing a strong global presence.

In April 2024, Hell Energy discovered that their trademarks were being misused by individuals operating under the domain names “hellenergypvt.com” and “hell-energy.in.” These imposters allegedly used email addresses associated with these domains to defraud the public by offering fake distributorships for Hell Energy products.

Based on the evidence and pleadings, the court found that the plaintiffs had prima facie established their ownership of the "HELL" trademark and its derivatives, along with the associated goodwill. The provided screenshots and other materials clearly demonstrated the misuse of the plaintiffs’ registered trademarks by the imposters.

Judge Sanjeev Narula, evaluating the case, noted that Hell Energy had made a compelling prima facie case. The court recognized the potential for irreparable harm to the plaintiffs if an ex-parte ad interim injunction was not granted. Consequently, the balance of convenience was deemed to lie in favor of the plaintiffs.

As a result, the court issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the disputed domain names and any associated email addresses until the next hearing. This order aims to prevent further fraudulent activities and protect the integrity of Hell Energy’s trademark.

Case Title:Hell Energy Magyarorazagkft Vs National Internet Exchange of India
Judgment/Order Date: 30.05.2024
Case No. CS(COMM) 494/2024
Neutral Citation: NA
Name of Court: Delhi High Court
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjeev Narula, H.J.

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written by:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
United & United
Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com
Ph No: 9990389539

DS Afrifoods Pvt. Ltd. Vs Singhal Enterprises

Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction in Favor of DS Afrifoods Pvt. Ltd. in Trademark Dispute with Singhal Enterprises

In this case the Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of DS Afrifoods Pvt. Ltd., the proprietor of the trademarks “DOONMALAI” and its trade dress/packaging, against Singhal Enterprises for the alleged use of a deceptively similar mark, “DOODHMALAI,” for identical products.

DS Afrifoods Pvt. Ltd. has been using the trademark “DOONMALAI” since June 1, 1986, for their rice products, and their trademarks and labels are currently pending registration in Class 30 before the Trademarks Registry. In addition to trademark rights, the plaintiff claims copyright over the artistic work comprising these labels.

The plaintiff brought the suit against Singhal Enterprises, alleging that the defendant's mark “DOODHMALAI” is phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to “DOONMALAI.” Furthermore, the defendant has allegedly replicated the make and design of the plaintiff’s products. The court noted that the previous business relationship between the parties suggests that the defendant's adoption of the impugned mark and packaging may be intended to leverage the plaintiff’s established market reputation.

In the court’s prima facie opinion, the defendants appear to be passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff. This conclusion is supported by the plaintiff’s detailed sales figures presented in the plaint. Judge Sanjeev Narula found that the plaintiff has made a convincing prima facie case, demonstrating that an ex-parte ad interim injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable loss to the plaintiff. The balance of convenience was also deemed to favor the plaintiff.

As a result, the Delhi High Court issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction, prohibiting Singhal Enterprises from using the “DOODHMALAI” mark or any similar variants until the next hearing. This order aims to protect the plaintiff's trademark rights and prevent consumer confusion in the market.

Case Title: DS Afrifoods Pvt. Ltd. Vs Singhal Enterprises

Judgment/Order Date: 30.05.2024

Case No. CS(COMM) 477/2024

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjeev Narula, H.J.

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written by:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com

Ph No: 9990389539

Dominos IP Holder Vs MG Foods

Ex-Parte Ad Interim Injunction Granted in Favor of Domino's in Trademark Infringement Case Against MG Foods

The plaintiffs, Domino’s IP Holder, have successfully secured an ex-parte ad interim injunction against MG Foods for trademark infringement. The plaintiffs, renowned for their “DOMINO’S” mark since 1965, have established an extensive global presence with over 20,500 stores in more than 90 countries. In India, Domino's maintains a robust online ordering platform through their domain www.dominos.co.in, operational since 2007.

The plaintiffs raised concerns regarding the activities of defendant No.1, MG Foods, which has been operating in various regions of Punjab, specifically Jalandhar, Nakodar, Goraya, and Mehatpur. The defendant was found to be using a phonetically and visually similar mark, ‘DONITO’S,’ to sell identical products such as pizzas and burgers. This similarity has led to allegations of trademark infringement.

Hon'ble Judge Anish Dayal, presiding over the case, found sufficient grounds to grant the plaintiffs’ request for an ex-parte ad interim injunction. The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favored them. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiffs would likely suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted.

As a result, the court issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, prohibiting the defendants from using the deceptively similar mark ‘DONITO’S’ until the next hearing. This order aims to prevent any further potential harm to the plaintiffs' brand and business operations.

Case Title: Dominos IP Holder Vs MG Foods

Judgment/Order Date: 31.05.2024

Case No. CS(COMM) 517/2024

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Court: Delhi High Court

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Anish Dayal, H.J.

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written by:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com

Ph No: 9990389539

Akzo Nobel Coating International BV Vs JK Cement

Role of Imagination Test and Competitors' Need Test in Trademark Disputes

Introduction:

In this case of ‘WEATHERSHIELD,’ used by the plaintiff for paints and coatings, versus ‘JK SUPER STRONG BUILD SAFE WEATHER SHIELD,’ used by the defendant for cement and building and construction materials, the court’s reliance on the “degree of imagination test” and “competitors’ need test” provides a detailed illustration of these concepts in action. This article examines the application of these tests and the court’s rationale in determining trademark infringement, leading to the interim relief granted to the plaintiff.

Background:

The plaintiff’s mark ‘WEATHERSHIELD’ has been in use since the 1970s and is registered in over 91 countries. In India, it holds registrations dating back to 1995. In contrast, the defendant applied for registration of ‘JK SUPER STRONG BUILD SAFE WEATHER SHIELD’ in September 2019 for building and construction materials, including cement. Upon discovering the defendant’s applications, the plaintiff initiated a legal dispute, arguing potential infringement and confusion due to the similarity of the marks.

Imagination Test and Competitors’ Need Test:

The court utilized two key tests to assess the distinctiveness and protectability of the plaintiff’s mark: the degree of imagination test and the competitors’ need test. These tests are interrelated and help determine whether a mark is descriptive or suggestive, and thus, the extent of protection it deserves.

Degree of Imagination Test:

This test evaluates how much imagination is required for consumers to associate the mark with the product. A mark requiring a high degree of imagination is less likely to be considered descriptive and more likely to be protected. In this case, the court noted that ‘WEATHERSHIELD’ is a unique and distinctive combination of common words ‘weather’ and ‘shield’. The term does not appear in dictionaries, underscoring its distinctiveness. The combination suggests a product that protects against weather, but this association is not immediately obvious, necessitating a higher degree of imagination.

Competitors’ Need Test:

This test assesses whether competitors need to use the term to describe their goods. If a term is essential for competitors to describe their products, it is likely to be considered descriptive and less protectable. The court found that the defendant had numerous alternative ways to convey the idea of weather protection without using the exact term ‘WEATHERSHIELD’. Alternatives such as ‘all weather protection’, ‘weather protector’, or ‘weather guard’ could effectively communicate the same message without infringing on the plaintiff’s mark.

Application to the Case:

The court observed that the defendant’s use of ‘WEATHER SHIELD’, with or without a space, and its placement on packaging indicated an intent to use it as a distinctive trademark rather than merely a descriptive term. This was evident from the manner of its presentation on packaging and in advertisements. Additionally, both products—cement and paints—are complementary in the construction industry and often purchased by the same group of consumers, including home builders, contractors, and masons.

Complementary Goods and Trade Channels:

The court highlighted that both cement and paints are used in construction and are often sold through the same trade channels, such as hardware and paint shops. This complementary relationship and common market channels increase the likelihood of confusion among consumers if identical or similar marks are used for both products. Thus, the court found that the concurrent use of ‘WEATHERSHIELD’ and ‘WEATHER SHIELD’ would likely lead to confusion, warranting interim relief in favor of the plaintiff.

Conclusion:

The application of the imagination test and competitors’ need test in this trademark dispute underscores the importance of evaluating the distinctiveness of a mark and the necessity for competitors to use similar terminology. The court’s detailed analysis in favor of the plaintiff highlights how these tests are used to protect trademarks that are unique and do not impose undue restrictions on competitors. This case reaffirms that trademarks requiring a higher degree of imagination and not essential for describing competitors’ products are afforded greater protection, ensuring fair competition and consumer clarity in the marketplace.

Case Title: Akzo Nobel Coating International BV Vs JK Cement
Judgment/Order Date: 28.05.2024
Case No. CS(COMM) 212/2023
Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4694
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Anish Dayal, H.J.

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written by:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]
United & United
Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com
Ph No: 9990389539

Chryscapital Advisers Vs Raj Lal Kumari

Delhi High Grants Ex-Parte Interim Injunction in Favor of Chryscapital Advisers Against Fraudulent Use of Trademark

Introduction On May 29, 2024, the High Court of Delhi granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Chryscapital Advisers in the case titled *Chryscapital Advisers Vs Raj Lal Kumari* (Case No. CS(COMM) 475/2024). The Hon'ble Judge Sanjeev Narula presided over the matter, which addressed the unauthorized and fraudulent use of the trademark "CHRYSCAPITAL" by the Defendants. This decision underscores the importance of trademark protection and the judiciary's role in upholding intellectual property rights against deceptive practices. Background of the Case Chryscapital Advisers, the Plaintiff, has been using the trademark "CHRYSCAPITAL" since 1999. This mark, along with "CHRYS," has been registered and integrated into the company’s identity, including domain names, establishing a solid foothold in the investment and advisory industry. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants were fraudulently claiming an affiliation with Chryscapital Advisers, operating a deceptive trading investment business, and promising unrealistic returns to the public. This misuse aimed to capitalize on Chryscapital’s well-established reputation and goodwill. Legal Framework and Issues The primary legal issues revolved around trademark infringement and passing off. Trademark infringement involves the unauthorized use of a mark that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark, causing likely confusion about the origin of goods or services. Passing off is a common law tort used to enforce unregistered trademark rights, where a defendant’s misrepresentation leads the public to believe that their goods or services are those of the plaintiff. Court's Analysis and Findings The Court, upon examining the facts, concluded that: 1.Trademark Validity and Use: Chryscapital Advisers had a long-standing use and multiple registrations of the trademarks "CHRYS" and "CHRYSCAPITAL," affirming their proprietary rights. 2.Defendants’ Misrepresentation: The Defendants were found to be dishonestly using the Plaintiff’s trademarks, falsely claiming affiliation with Chryscapital, and promising high returns to investors. This was seen as a deliberate attempt to exploit Chryscapital's goodwill. 3.Likelihood of Confusion and Deception: The Court recognized that the Defendants’ actions were likely to deceive the public, causing confusion and potentially leading to financial harm for those misled by the fraudulent claims. 4.Immediate Relief Justification: Given the urgency and the potential for continued deception and damage, the Court deemed it necessary to grant an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. This immediate relief was crucial to prevent further misuse of the trademarks and protect the Plaintiff's business reputation. Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Injunction An ex-parte ad-interim injunction is a temporary measure granted without the presence of the Defendants, aimed at providing immediate relief to the Plaintiff. This is typically granted when there is a clear case of urgency or potential for irreparable harm. In this case, the Court restrained the Defendants from using "CHRYS," "CHRYSCAPITAL," or any deceptively similar marks in any manner. Conclusion:

The High Court of Delhi's grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Chryscapital Advisers is a significant legal development in the realm of intellectual property protection. By swiftly addressing the unauthorized and deceptive use of the "CHRYSCAPITAL" trademark, the Court has underscored the critical role of judicial oversight in protecting trademarks and preventing fraud.

Case Title: Chryscapital Advisers Vs Raj Lal Kumari

Judgment/Order Date: 29.05.2024

Case No. CS(COMM) 475/2024

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjeev Narula, H.J.

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written by:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com

Ph No: 9990389539

Chotiwala Food And Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Nitin Jain

Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Interim Injunction to Chotiwala Restaurant Against Trademark Infringement

The Delhi High Court has issued an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Chotiwala Food And Hotels Pvt. Ltd., a renowned restaurant operating in Rishikesh since 1958, in its legal battle against Nitin Jain for unauthorized use of the trademark "CHOTIWALA."

Background:

Chotiwala restaurant, established in 1958, is famous for its vegetarian cuisine and distinctive logo depicting a Brahmin with a Bodhi/Choti holding a ‘thali’ in a gesture of serving satvik/shakahari (vegetarian) food. This logo, along with the name "CHOTIWALA," is registered under the Trademark and Copyright Act. Over the past 65 years, the brand has acquired secondary meaning, becoming synonymous with high-quality vegetarian food in Rishikesh.

The plaintiffs have actively protected their trademark, successfully enforcing their rights in previous cases, including CS(OS) 2456/2011 and CS(COMM) 33/2023, both heard before the Delhi High Court.

Plaintiff's Grievance:

The current grievance of the plaintiffs is directed at defendant Nitin Jain, who allegedly adopted the plaintiffs’ marks for his restaurants under the name "MASHOOR CHOTIWALA RESTAURANT." This usage, according to the plaintiffs, infringes upon their registered trademarks and misleads consumers.

Court’s Observations:

Hon’ble Judge Anish Dayal noted that the plaintiffs have made a prima facie case for the grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction. The court recognized the long-standing use and reputation of the "CHOTIWALA" trademark and acknowledged the potential for consumer confusion due to the defendant’s use of a deceptively similar mark.

Judgment:

The court held that the balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiffs, who are likely to suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. Consequently, the court issued an ex parte interim injunction, restraining the defendant from using the word "CHOTIWALA" as part of their trademark or tradename, or any other mark that is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered "CHOTIWALA" trademark, until the next date of hearing.

Implications:

The Delhi High Court’s decision in Chotiwala Food And Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nitin Jain reinforces the principle that longstanding and well-recognized trademarks deserve robust protection against infringement. The ruling ensures that consumers are not misled by deceptive similarities and upholds the integrity of reputable brands.

Case Title: Chotiwala Food And Hotels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Nitin Jain

Judgment/Order Date: 28.05.2024

Case No. CS(COMM) 469/2024

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Anish Dayal, H.J.

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written by:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com

Ph No: 9990389539

Ambuja Cements Limited Vs Sudheer Sharma

High Court Grants Ex Parte Interim Injunction in Favor of Ambuja Cements Limited Against Fraudulent Use of Trademark

Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte interim injunction in favor of Ambuja Cements Limited, one of India’s leading manufacturers of cement and construction materials, against unauthorized use of its trademark by Defendants No. 1 to 12, who allegedly created fake websites to engage in phishing activities.

Background:

Ambuja Cements Limited, a prominent player in the cement industry, has been using the trademark “AMBUJA CEMENTS” since 1984. This mark is not only central to the company’s branding but also forms an integral part of its corporate identity.

The plaintiff filed a suit alleging that Defendants No. 1 to 12 had created fraudulent websites using the “AMBUJA CEMENT” trademark. These websites purportedly offered the plaintiff’s products to the public across India, despite the fact that Ambuja Cements Limited exclusively distributes its products through authorized dealers and does not sell online. This deceptive practice was intended to mislead consumers into believing they were purchasing authentic products directly from the plaintiff.

Court’s Observations:

The court examined the evidence, including screenshots and consumer accounts, which indicated that Defendants No. 1 to 12 were unlawfully using the “AMBUJA CEMENT” trademark. These defendants misrepresented themselves as officials or employees of Ambuja Cements Limited, luring unsuspecting consumers into paying significant amounts of money under the false pretense of placing orders for genuine Ambuja Cements products.

Judgment:

Hon’ble Judge Sanjeev Narula, upon considering the submissions and evidence presented, found that there was a prima facie case of trademark infringement and misrepresentation. The court noted that the defendants' actions were aimed at deceiving consumers and tarnishing the plaintiff's reputation.

Accordingly, the court granted an ex parte interim injunction, restraining Defendants No. 1 to 12 from using the “AMBUJA CEMENT” trademark or any deceptive variation thereof. This injunction aims to protect consumers from further harm and preserve the integrity of Ambuja Cements Limited’s brand.

Conclusion:

The High Court’s decision in Ambuja Cements Limited Vs Sudheer Sharma sets a critical precedent in trademark law enforcement, particularly in the digital age where fraudulent online activities are increasingly common.

Case Title: Ambuja Cements Limited Vs Sudheer Sharma

Judgment/Order Date: 29.05.2024

Case No. CS(COMM) 469/2024

Neutral Citation: NA

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Sanjeev Narula, H.J.

Disclaimer:

Ideas, thoughts, views, information, discussions and interpretation expressed herein are being shared in the public Interest. Readers' discretion is advised as these are subject to my subjectivity and may contain human errors in perception, interpretation and presentation of the fact and issue involved herein.

Written by:Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney]

United & United

Email: amitabh@unitedandunited.com

Ph No: 9990389539