What:
In a recent case of a trademark dispute between Rajnigandha and RajniPaan, the Delhi High Court held that there was a dishonest adoption of the trademark by Rajnipaan.
Facts of the Case:
(a) the proprietors of Rajnigandha had filed a case seeking a permanent injunction against the Rajnipaan for manufacturing, sale and advertisement of products similar to “rajni”, “Rajnigandha” or words similar to this.
(b) As a result of which, the court passed an order in favouring of Rajnigandha barring RajniPaan from indulging in the manufacturing, sale and advertisement of products similar to Rajnigandha.
However, in the whole proceedings, even after being repeatedly summoned, the defendant failed to appear before the court.
Observation of the Court:
Para 15– “Having analysed the competing marks and the impugned label/packaging, this court is of the opinion that there is a deceptive similarity between them. The court finds that the packaging of the impugned product, i.e., 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 the Plaintiffs have made out a case of infringement and passing off.
Para 17– “There is no gainsaying that the imitation, adoption and use of the nearly identical trademark, trade name logo and colour scheme by the Defendants are with the intent to cause confusion and create an impression amongst consumers that the Defendants have a direct nexus/affiliation with the Plaintiffs, or have been granted a license by the Plaintiffs in relation to their products and/or are doing business endorsed by the Plaintiffs.”
Held:
Observing the same, the Delhi High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 3 Lakh on RajniPaan for adopting a trademark similar to that of Rajnigandha in order to boost their business through their goodwill.
Case: Dharampal Satyapal Ltd & Anr v. Youssef Anis Mehio & Ors
