Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against “POWER FLEX”, Affirms Bata’s Exclusive Rights Over “POWER” Footwear Brand
Delhi High Court Upholds Injunction Against “POWER FLEX”, Affirms Bata’s Exclusive Rights Over “POWER” Footwear Brand
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has upheld an interim injunction restraining Leayan Global Private Limited from using the mark “POWER FLEX” for footwear, in a trademark infringement suit filed by Bata India Limited. The Court held that the use of “POWER FLEX” was likely to cause confusion with Bata’s registered trademark “POWER”, particularly in the footwear segment.
Factual Background
Bata India Limited is a well-established footwear manufacturer and the registered proprietor of the trademark “POWER”, which it uses for its range of footwear, including canvas shoes.
Leayan Global Private Limited was manufacturing and selling footwear under the mark “POWER FLEX”. Bata alleged that “POWER” was the dominant element of Leayan’s mark and that its use amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.
Procedural Background
Bata instituted a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi High Court. In 2019, a Single Judge granted an interim injunction restraining Leayan from using the mark “POWER FLEX” for footwear, while permitting limited use of the tagline “THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER”, provided no undue emphasis was placed on the word “POWER”.
Leayan filed an appeal challenging the injunction. Bata also filed a cross-appeal objecting to the permission granted to use the tagline. Both appeals were heard together by a Division Bench.
Issues
1. Whether the use of “POWER FLEX” for footwear infringed Bata’s registered trademark “POWER”.
2. Whether “POWER FLEX” was likely to cause confusion or association with Bata’s “POWER” brand.
3. Whether Leayan could claim protection for the use of “POWER FLEX” or the tagline “THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER”.
Contentions of the Parties
Bata argued that it was the registered proprietor of the mark “POWER” and that Leayan’s use of “POWER FLEX” amounted to infringement, as “POWER” was the dominant part of the rival mark. It contended that consumers were likely to believe “POWER FLEX” to be a sub-brand or extension of Bata’s footwear line.
Leayan contended that “POWER” was a common and non-distinctive word, that Bata primarily used it for canvas footwear, and that its own use for leather footwear would not cause confusion. It also sought protection under Section 35 of the Trade Marks Act for bona fide descriptive use.
Reasoning and Analysis
The High Court held that Bata’s registration of the mark “POWER” conferred statutory rights, while Leayan had no trademark registration for “POWER FLEX” in any class. It observed that Leayan could not claim any independent right to use the mark under the Trade Marks Act.
The Court emphasised that trademarks must be assessed from the perspective of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. It held that consumers familiar with Bata’s “POWER” footwear were likely to assume that “POWER FLEX” was a variant or sub-brand introduced by Bata, especially since both marks were used for identical goods.
The Bench rejected the argument that “POWER” lacked distinctiveness in the footwear segment, noting that while the word may be generic in other contexts, it had acquired distinctiveness when used for footwear.
On the tagline “THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER”, the Court agreed with the Single Judge that the phrase was being used as a descriptive slogan, with no undue prominence to the word “POWER”. It held that, when read as a whole, the tagline emphasised leather quality rather than indicating any trade connection with Bata.
Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed both appeals. It upheld the interim injunction restraining Leayan Global Private Limited from using the mark “POWER FLEX” for footwear. At the same time, it affirmed that Leayan could continue using the tagline “THE POWER OF REAL LEATHER”, subject to the condition that the word “POWER” is not given undue prominence.
In this case the appellant was represented by Mr. Shravan Kumar Bansal, Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Mr. Pankaj Kumar and Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocates. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr. Neeraj Grover, Mr. Kashish Sethi, Ms. Harshita Chawla, Mr. Angad Deep Singh and Ms. Mohana Sarkar, Advocates.
