Diversey's Triumph: Court Rules in Favor of Global Hygiene Leader in Trademark Infringement Case

Diversey's Triumph: Court Rules in Favor of Global Hygiene Leader in Trademark Infringement Case

Introduction

The Bengaluru District Court has ruled in favor of Diversey, a global leader in high-performance hygiene, infection prevention, and cleaning solutions, in a trademark infringement case against defendants who used deceptively similar marks.

Factual Background

Diversey, a company with a history dating back to the early 20th century, has been using its trademark and artwork globally, including in India. The defendants, without permission, used marks similar to Diversey's, including "Divercy" and "Divency," for their products.

Procedural Background

Diversey filed a suit against the defendants, alleging trademark infringement and copyright infringement. The defendants appeared and filed a written statement but did not contest the proceedings further.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff's Contentions:

• Diversey claimed that the defendants' use of similar marks constituted trademark infringement and copyright infringement.
• Diversey argued that the defendants' actions were likely to cause confusion among consumers and dilute the distinctiveness of Diversey's trademark.

Defendants' Contentions:

• The defendants claimed that their mark "Pabu Divercy" was not similar to Diversey's trademark.
• The defendants argued that they had stopped using the mark and had not received any complaints about confusion or deception.

Reasoning & Analysis

The bench of District Judge Arjun S. Mallur observed that the defendants' marks were phonetically and deceptively similar to Diversey's trademark, constituting infringement. The court also noted that the defendants' use of similar marks was likely to cause confusion among consumers.

Findings

The court ruled in favor of Diversey, holding that the defendants had infringed upon Diversey's trademark and copyright. The court granted permanent and perpetual injunctions against the defendants and awarded damages of ₹75,00,000 to Diversey.

Implications

The court's decision emphasizes the importance of protecting trademarks and intellectual property rights. The ruling also highlights the need for companies to ensure that their branding and marketing efforts do not infringe upon the rights of others.

Final Outcome

The court's decision is a significant victory for Diversey, protecting its trademark and intellectual property rights. The ruling also serves as a reminder to companies to respect the intellectual property rights of others.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Manu Kulkarni, Advocate.