The CourtroomHigh Court
Delhi HC: Proprietor of a Trademark Cannot Enjoy Monopoly Over the Entire Class of Goods
By Liji Anna Thomas
High CourtAyan Mohanty - January 16, 2021 0
Introduction The Petitioner Purna Ch. Biswas filed a Writ Petition with the complaint that their claims for a higher quantum...
High CourtDhananjay Khanna - January 16, 2021 0
No Members Could Be Disqualified Without Authorisation by Political Party: Gujarat High Court
Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated...
High CourtSakina Kapadia - January 16, 2021 0
Delhi High Court Directs Delhi Jal Board To Make Supply of Potable Drinking Water
The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India &...
Liji Anna Thomas
The Court explained that trademark in respect of 'certain goods' among a class of goods does not cover all the goods of the same class.
Brief Facts
Mittal Electronics (Plaintiff) sought an injunction to prevent the Defendants from dealing under the trademark 'Star SUJATA' or 'SUJATA'. The Plaintiff found their trademark to be identical and similar.
The Delhi High Court had passed an ad-interim injunction in February and ordered reports from the Local Commissioners.
Petitioner's Arguments
The Plaintiff adopted the trademark 'SUJATA' in the year 1980 after which their business was expanded to electrical goods and home appliances. From 1991 to 2018, the Plaintiff owned the registered trademark 'SUJATA.' It has had huge sales under the trademark and also spends a large amount on its advertising.
They stated that both parties used the same trademark for the sale of home and kitchen appliances and that the products are used by the same consumers and are sold through the same outlet.
Respondent's Arguments
Mr Kumar has had a proprietorship firm, Luxmi Enterprises since 2008. Defendant No. 1, the company Sujata Home Appliances, was formed to expand his business. It was incorporated with his relatives as Director, but later he also became one of the Directors.
Sujata Home Appliances entered into a license agreement with Luxmi Enterprises. In the application for the registration of Sujata Home Appliances, Mr Kumar stated that he was the user of the trademark 'SUJATA' since 2008 for water purifiers. He had been granted trademark registration of 'SUJATA' in 2012 for the manufacture and sale of water purifiers, RO system, and water filters.
The fact that defendant No. 1 is the prior user of the mark 'SUJATA' with respect to Water Purifiers, RO Systems, and Water Filters was concealed from the Court in earlier proceedings.
The defendant, therefore, sought modification of the injunction order against water purifiers, water filters, and RO systems alone and not in respect of all other goods.
Court's Observations
The Plaintiff's registration of the trademark 'SUJATA', which includes water filters, water purifiers, and RO systems was after that of the Defendant.
The Bench noted that in the past several years, there has not been any proof of confusion in the customers about the Plaintiff's and Defendant's products.
For the goods water filters, water purifiers, and RO System, Mr Kumar is the licensor as the Director of Defendant No.1 is the prior registered owner and only user of the mark SUJATA. The plaintiff, till date, has not used the mark 'SUJATA' for water filters, water purifiers, and RO system. The goods of the plaintiff and defendant fall in the same broad classification of home appliances. But they are different goods used for different purposes.
Court's Decision
The Court ruled that the defendants can continue to manufacture and sell under the trademark 'SUJATA'.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
Previous articleSC Gives NIA Two Weeks to Submit Evidence to Prove Gaus' Ties With LeT
Next articlePakistan Court Sentences 37-Year-Old Christian Man to Death for Blasphemy Texts
Dhananjay Khanna - January 16, 2021 0
Excerpt The dispute application no.7 of 2020 filed by respondent no.2 before designated authority. Thereafter the designated authority order dated 28.10.2020 disqualified the petitioner and...
Sakina Kapadia - January 16, 2021 0
The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Delhi Sainik Cooperation Housing Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors held that right to...
Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Security To BJP Leader Alleged for Not Supporting Farmers Protest
The Order had come in the form of a Writ Petition filed by Tikshan Sood under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition before...
Lahore High Court Outlaws Two-Finger Virginity Test
Moshiuzzaman - January 16, 2021 0
The Lahore High Court in Pakistan has outlawed the use and conduct of virginity tests, namely, the use of the "two-finger" virginity test and...
London Court Rejects Assange's Extradition – What Happens Now?
Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates' Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...
Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount
Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner's offer as...
High Court Adhiti Sharma - January 16, 2021 0
High Court Ayan Mohanty - January 16, 2021 0