Sujata Trademark Clash: Instant Relief Granted, With Anand & Anand Team
Sujata Trademark Clash: Instant Relief Granted, With Anand & Anand Team
Introduction
A Division Bench considered a recent judgment involving trademark infringement and passing off. The case involved Mittal Electronics, a renowned manufacturer and seller of electrical and electronics products, and Kei Electricals and Electronics, a company alleged to have infringed on Mittal Electronics' registered trademark 'SUJATA'.
Factual Background
Mittal Electronics has a registered trademark 'SUJATA' which the company alleged was being infringed by Kei Electricals and Electronics. The plaintiff, Mittal Electronics, is a company engaged in the business of developing, manufacturing, marketing, and exporting electrical and electronics products under the mark 'SUJATA'.
Procedural Background
The case was filed by Mittal Electronics against Kei Electricals and Electronics for trademark infringement and passing off. The court, presided over by HMJ Saurabh Banerjee, heard arguments from the plaintiff and considered the evidence presented. The plaintiff sought exemption from pre-litigation mediation under Section 124 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issues Involved in the Case
1. Whether the defendant's use of Mittal Electronics' registered trademark constituted trademark infringement.
2. Whether the defendant's actions amounted to passing off.
3. Whether Mittal Electronics was entitled to an injunction.
Submissions of the Parties
Plaintiff (Mittal Electronics): The defendant's use of Mittal Electronics' registered trademark was an attempt to exploit Mittal Electronics' goodwill and brand reputation. The plaintiff sought an injunction and damages.
Defendant (Kei Electricals and Electronics): The defendant did not contest the allegations.
Discussion on Judgments and Legal Citations
The court relied on relevant case law, including previous judgments on trademark infringement and passing off, such as the principles established in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia vs. R A Perfumery Works Private Limited. The court also considered the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Krithi 2024 (5) SCC 815.
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 the defendant's actions were an attempt to exploit Mittal Electronics' goodwill and brand reputation.
Basis for Calculating Damages
No damages were awarded in this case.
Final Decision
The court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against Kei Electricals and Electronics, restraining them from using Mittal Electronics' protected mark.
Law Settled in This Case
The case establishes that trademark infringement can have serious consequences, including significant damages and reputational harm.
In this case, Mittal Electronics was represented by Team Anand & Anand led by Pravin Anand, Shobhit Agarwal, and Mr. Prajjwal, Advocates.
If you have a news or deal publication or would like to collaborate on content, columns, or article publications, connect with the Legal Era News Network Team and email us at info@legalera.in or call us on +91 8879634922.
