Geographical Location of Parties Does Not, In Any Manner, Avoid the Chances of Confusion between Identical Marks and Names
That recently an order was passed wherein it was stated that Geographical
Location of Parties Does Not, In Any Manner, Avoid the Chances of Confusion
between Identical Marks and Names. The summary of the case is as below.
The Plaintiff, JDM Heritage Lawns Heritage Private Limited owns the registered 'SADDA
PIND' mark in the hospitality and allied services industry in class 43 since
2015. That the Plaintiff came across the Defendant's Ankit Chawla Proprietor of
Sadda Pind Restaurant, who adopted an identical mark 'SADDA PIND RESTAURANT' for
identical services at NH-48, Ramchandpura, Rajasthan.
The Plaintiff had issued a notice to the Defendant on 31st May, 2022 and the
Defendant in reply to the legal notice claimed that there logo bears no
similarity with the specific logo of the Plaintiff as it is using the mark 5
That thereafter the Plaintiff approached the Delhi High Court with a suit for
Infringement, Passing Off, Unfair Competition and Misuse of the 'SADDA PIND'
name and logo. The Plaintiff seeks injunction by restraining Ankit Chawla
Proprietor of Sadda Pind Restaurant, for adopting an identical mark 'SADDA PIND
RESTAURANT' for identical services at NH-48, Ramchandpura, Rajasthan.
The court rejected the claim of the defendant's as made in the reply to legal
notice and said the defendant is using 'SADD PIND' mark, which is an identical
mark, name, logo and device as that of the Plaintiff. "Even the letter 5 is in a
manner so as to appear close to `S' so that `5adda' is read as `Sadda'.
The court was of the opinion that though the plaintiff may be having its
property in Amritsar, its registered office is in Delhi and there "is a
reasonable scope of expansion" for the Plaintiff as contemplated in the 2-judge
bench judgement of the Supreme Court in Laxmikant V Patel vs. Chetanbhat Shah
and Anr., (2002).
"It is a fact of which judicial notice can be taken that presently, bookings
through online portals have become the norm and the geographical location of
parties does not, in any manner, avoid the chances of confusion between
identical marks and names. The listing of the Plaintiff and the Defendant using
an identical mark and name as also logo is bound to create deception in the
minds of the customers that the Defendant's property is in some manner
associated or a part of the Plaintiff,"
Accordingly, the Defendant shall stand restrained from using the mark & name
'SADDA PIND' at NH-48, Ramchandpura, Rajasthan including the device and/or any
identical or deceptively similar name as that of the Plaintiff, i.e., 'SADDA
PIND' thereof in respect of any resort/restaurant, accommodation, hotel and
entertainment venue or in relation to any other allied or cognate services. The
injunction granted shall come into effect from 15th November, 2022. No further
outlets or properties or resorts etc. shall be opened by the Defendant under the
impugned mark and name with immediate effect.
#trademark #infringement #passingoff #geographicallocation # misuse #unfaircompetition
# injunction #similarity #confusion #deception #ipr #intellectualpropertyright
Law Article in India
You May Like
Legal Question & Answers