ROZANA Trademark Case: Delhi High Court Restrains Defendant from Infringing Mark
ROZANA Trademark Case: Delhi High Court Restrains Defendant from Infringing Mark
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of LT Foods Middle East DMCC & Ors. against Capital Ventures Pvt Ltd, restraining them from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in products under the impugned mark 'ROZANA' or any other mark that may be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' mark.
Factual Background
The plaintiffs, LT Foods Middle East DMCC & Ors., are engaged in the business of processing, marketing, and exporting rice. They claim to be the registered proprietors of the trademark 'ROZANA' and related marks, which they use for their rice products. The defendant, Capital Ventures Pvt Ltd, is alleged to have adopted a similar mark for their rice products, which is likely to cause confusion among consumers.
Procedural Background
● Filing of Suit: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant for trademark infringement and passing off.
● Application for Interim Injunction: The plaintiffs filed an application seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant.
● Application for Appointment of Local Commissioner: The plaintiffs also filed an application seeking the appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the defendant's premises and seize any infringing products or materials.
Issues
- Trademark Infringement: Whether the defendant's use of the impugned mark constitutes trademark infringement.
- Passing Off: Whether the defendant's actions constitute passing off.
Contentions of the Parties
Plaintiffs' Contention:
- Registration and Use: The plaintiffs are registered proprietors of the 'ROZANA' mark and have been using it for their rice products.
- Goodwill and Reputation: The plaintiffs claim that their mark has acquired goodwill and reputation in the market, and the defendant's actions are likely to dilute the same.
Court's Observations
- Prima Facie Case: The court finds that the plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
- Injunction Order: The court restrains the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in products under the impugned mark or any other mark that may be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' mark.
- Appointment of Local Commissioner: The court appoints a Local Commissioner to visit the defendant's premises and seize any infringing products or materials.
Reasoning and Analysis
The court's decision is based on the principle that a registered trademark owner has the exclusive right to use the mark and protect it from infringement. The bench of Justice Tejas Karia finds that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, and therefore, are entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
Decision
The court grants the following reliefs:
- Ex-parte Ad-interim Injunction: The defendant is restrained from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in products under the impugned mark or any other mark that may be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' mark.
- Appointment of Local Commissioner: A Local Commissioner is appointed to visit the defendant's premises and seize any infringing products or materials.
Implications
The court's order highlights the importance of protecting trademark rights and the potential consequences of infringement. The appointment of a Local Commissioner ensures that the defendant's activities are monitored and any infringing materials are seized.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Jai Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Mr. R. Abhishek and Mr. Avinash Sharma, Advocates.
