The Delhi High Court denies interim relief to ‘Khadi’ in a trademark infringement suit, asserting that goodwill acquired after the ‘terminus ad quem’ is inconsequential
Case: KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION v. GIRDHAR INDUSTRIES AND ANR.
Coram: Justice C Hari Shankar
Case No.: CS(COMM) 130/2022
Court Observation: “There is no prima facie evidence, on record, of the plaintiff’s mark KHADI having acquired goodwill or reputation, for soaps, prior to 2001, from which date the defendants claim user of the GIRDHAR KHADI mark, or even prior to 2005, when the GIRDHAR KHADI mark was registered in the plaintiff’s favour,”
“No prima facie case of passing off has, therefore, been made out by the plaintiff against the defendants,”
“The terminus ad quem, by which date the plaintiff has to prove the acquisition of the requisite goodwill and reputation for a plea of passing off to succeed, is the date of commencement, by the defendant, of the rival mark. Goodwill or reputation acquired by the plaintiff, in the asserted mark, after that date, is of no consequence,”
“In the absence of a prima facie finding of invalidity of Defendant 1’s registration of the trade mark GIRDHAR KHADI, no action for infringement of the mark can lie at the instance of the plaintiff, which is a later registrant of the mark KHADI,”
“Even if it were to be assumed that the defendants were using the BR KHADI mark, no prima facie case for injunction against such use can be said to exist in the plaintiff’s favour, as the findings hereinabove, apropos the GIRDHAR KHADI mark, would – except for the finding regarding suppression of fact – apply mutatis mutandis to the prayer for injuncting use of the BR KHADI mark as well.”
Previous Posts
