‘Rajnigandha Well Known Trademark, Entitled To Higher Degree Of Protection’: Delhi High Court Blocks Sale of Rajni Paan
Case: Dharampal Satyapal Limited & Anr. v. Mr. Youssef Anis Mehio & Ors.
Coram: Justice Jyoti Singh
Case No.: CS (Comm) 1255/2018
Court Observation: “It appears that Defendants No. 1 to 4 have no real prospect of defending the claim, having chosen to stay away from the proceedings despite service. In these circumstances, Plaintiffs are entitled to a decree under Order XIII-A CPC, as amended by Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015, which empowers this Court to pass a summary judgment, without recording evidence, if it appears that Defendants have no real prospect of defending the claims.”
“The packaging of the impugned product has been designed in an identical colour scheme, font and labels, to give an overall look and feel of the Plaintiffs’ products under the RAJNIGANDHA marks, which, as rightly contended by the Plaintiffs, has been done intentionally to trade off the significant goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs in their RAJNIGANDHA marks. It is obvious that there is a dishonest adoption by the Defendants and Plaintiffs have made out a case of infringement and passing off”.
“This Court finds that Defendants have mischievously and deliberately adopted a deceptively similar mark and have only replaced ‘GANDHA’ with ‘PAAN’ with an intention to ride upon goodwill and reputation established by the Plaintiffs,”
“Given that the trademark RAJNIGANDHA is a “well-known” mark as defined under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act and entitled to a high degree of protection, even in cases of dissimilar goods the owner of the mark is required to be shielded,”
“Present case stands on a better footing, as the impugned goods of the Defendants are Chillum flavours, registered in Class 34 and the product of the Plaintiffs is Pan Masala, also registered in Class 34. The goods are allied and cognate and the triple identity test is satisfied as the trademark is nearly identical, goods are allied and cognate and the trade channels are identical with same consumer base.”
“However, in view of the fact that Defendant Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are guilty of infringement by dishonestly adopting nearly identical trademark and identical packaging, trade-dress, etc., and have chosen to deliberately stay away from the proceedings, despite service, for which repeated efforts had been made by the Plaintiffs, this Court is of the view that Plaintiffs are entitled to notional damages…Plaintiffs are also entitled to costs.”
“In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Defendants No. 1 to 4 in terms of para 48(i) (a) and (c) of the prayer clause of the plaint. Decree of damages is passed for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Further, Plaintiffs would be entitled to CS(COMM) 1255/2018 Page 16 of 16 actual costs, which would include Court fee, recoverable jointly from Defendants No. 1 to 4.”
Previous Posts
ApplesTree vs ApplePlant: How Delhi High Court Interpreted Synonymy In A Trademark Infringement Suit
