In a recent judgment by the
Aggrieved by the Defendant Panasonic launching its new series of ceiling fans namely
The Plaintiff contended that since its inception in the year 1983, it had become a market leader in manufacturing and trading of various types of fans in
The Plaintiff further contended that the Defendant's
The Defendant, on the other hand, contested the averments made by the Plaintiff on the ground that it had been in electrical business for over five decades and that the Venice Prime series of ceiling fans was inspired from the Defendant's earlier brand CAPTOR, launched in the year 2020. The Defendant further accused the Plaintiff of suppression of material facts, such as concealing the pendency of challenge against its impugned registered design, and that the latter had not come before the court with clean hands. The Defendant also highlighted the differences between the two products, particularly that the Plaintiff's pattern had thick intersecting yellow lines with greyish hazy/smoky background, while the Defendant's Venice had a colour combination of gold and silver in abstract lines and the other two also had abstract patterns in a different colour scheme. It was also contended by the Defendant that since the Plaintiff had claimed trademark rights in its registered designs, the design registration had become vulnerable and was liable to be cancelled in accordance to Section 19(1)(e) of the Designs Act ("Any person interested may present a petition for the cancellation of the registration of a design at any time after the registration of the design, to the Controller on any of the following grounds, namely: that it is not a design as defined under clause (d) of section 2").
Pursuant to hearing the arguments and submissions made by both the parties, the court eventually agreed with the Plaintiff, holding that the Defendant has slavishly copied and imitated the Plaintiff's design.
The Court stated that it is a settled law that parties can raise alternate and inconsistent pleas but should not be permitted to raise pleas which are mutually destructive of each other. Thus, even if the Plaintiff asserted a claim of trademark in a registered design, it was still open to plead that it had goodwill and reputation and the Defendant by misrepresentation was passing off its goods as that of the Plaintiff's, thereby causing damage and injury to the Plaintiff.
The court was satisfied that the impugned design had been created with a clear intent to copy the design of the Plaintiff. Also, the court was of the opinion that there was no suppression of material facts by the Plaintiff.
The court noted that in the event the interim injunction was not granted, irreparable loss shall be caused to the Plaintiff as the Defendant was infringing the design of the Plaintiff and passing off its goods as that of the Plaintiff, thereby deceiving the public.
Source:
- https://justicebench.com/panasonic-is-banned-from-selling-fans-that-are-deceptively-similar-to-havells-rules-delhi-high-court/
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
Mr
Kan & Krishme
KNK House, A-11, Shubham Enclave,
Paschim Vihar,
110063
Tel: 9111 45570276
Fax: 9111 42334002
E-mail: knk@kankrishme.com
URL: www.kankrishme.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2022 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source