Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction In Favor Of Bridgestone Corporation, Awards INR 34 Lakhs In Damages, With Anand & Anand As Representing Counsel
Delhi High Court Grants Permanent Injunction In Favor Of Bridgestone Corporation, Awards INR 34 Lakhs In Damages, With Anand & Anand As Representing Counsel
Introduction
The Delhi High Court granted a permanent injunction in favor of Bridgestone Corporation and awarded damages of ₹34.41 lakhs. The court's decision was based on the principles of trademark infringement and passing off, finding that Merlin Rubber's use of the "BRIMESTONE" mark was deceptively similar to Bridgestone's registered "BRIDGESTONE" trademark.
Factual Background
Bridgestone Corporation, a Japanese tire manufacturer, is a well-established global leader in the tire industry. The company has a strong presence in India, with Merlin Rubber found to be selling butyl tubes for two-wheelers and four-wheelers under the infringing mark "BRIMESTONE".
Procedural Background
The case was filed by Bridgestone Corporation against Merlin Rubber for trademark infringement and passing off. The court heard arguments from both parties and considered the evidence presented.
Issues Involved in the Case
1. Whether Merlin Rubber's use of the "BRIMESTONE" mark constituted trademark infringement.
2. Whether Merlin Rubber's actions amounted to passing off.
3. Whether Bridgestone Corporation was entitled to damages and a permanent injunction.
Submissions of the Parties
Plaintiff (Bridgestone Corporation): Merlin Rubber's use of the "BRIMESTONE" mark was deceptively similar to Bridgestone's trademark, constituting infringement. The plaintiff sought damages and a permanent injunction.
Defendant (Merlin Rubber): Merlin Rubber did not contest the allegations and acknowledged the infringement.
Discussion on Judgments and Legal Citations
The court relied on relevant case law, including previous judgments on trademark infringement and passing off.
Reasoning and Analysis by the Judge
The court's decision was based on the principles of trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that Merlin Rubber's use of the "BRIMESTONE" mark was deceptively similar to Bridgestone's trademark.
Basis for Calculating Damages
The damages awarded in this case were calculated based on the sales data and profit margins of Merlin Rubber.
Final Decision
The court granted a permanent injunction against Merlin Rubber, restraining them from using the "BRIMESTONE" mark. The court also awarded ₹34.41 lakhs in damages to Bridgestone Corporation.
Law Settled in This Case
The case establishes that trademark infringement can have serious consequences, including significant damages and reputational harm. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of protecting intellectual property rights.
In this case, Bridgestone Corporation was represented by Team Anand & Anand led by Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Udita Patro, Ms. Sampurna Sanyal, Advocates.
