Title of the case: NILKAMAL CRATES AND CONTAINERS & ANR.
CS(COMM) 707/2023
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
Judgement dated: 06.11.2023
Introduction
The High Court of Delhi has laid back two plastic chair manufacturers from using the Nilkranti device mark or any other device mark that is purplex or ambiguous similar to the device mark of Nilkamal Justice C Hari Shankar however rejected Nilkamal’s prayer in its trademark infringement suit to restrain the manufacturers from using “Nilkranti” as a word mark.
Facts of the case
The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the use, by the defendants, of the mark NILKRANTI and the logo. The defendants, too, admittedly, use the impugned marks for plastic molded chairs.
an absolute inunction ought to be issued against the defendants using the mark NILKRANTI, whether as a word mark or as a logo it is submitted that t it would be perfectly open to the defendants to use “KRANTI” with any prefix other than “NIL” and that, by employing the “NIL” prefix, seen in conjunction with the similarity between the logo that the defendants have chosen to adopt vis-à-vis the plaintiffs’ logo, the defendants’ intention to come as close to the plaintiffs as possible is evident.
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd has been placed.
Mr. Satish Kumar submits that the mark NILKRANTI, as used by the defendants, cannot be said to be similar to NILKAMAL, either as a word mark or in the form of the device.
also submits that he has been using the NILKRANTI mark since May June 2017 and that, therefore, at this distance of time, it would not be in the fitness of things to injure him from using the mark further.
Analysis of the court
The prayer of the plaintiffs to restrain the defendants from using NILKRANTI as a word mark, either for chairs or for any other item, is rejected.
the defendants shall stand restrained from using the device mark, or any other device mark which is confusingly or deceptively similar to the device marks and of the plaintiffs.
It is clarified that the defendants would be at liberty to use “NILKRANTI” in any other manner that does not infringe the device marks of the plaintiffs
Insofar as the chairs which have been inventoried and seized by the local Commissioner pursuant to the orders passed by this Court are concerned, the defendants would be at liberty to dispose of the chairs, but after removing, from the chairs, the infringing labels.
Any such removal of labels and disposal of chairs shall take place in the presence of the representatives of the plaintiffs. In case any such removal is to be undertaken, details thereof shall be placed on record before this Court, by the defendants, on affidavit.
The suit stands disposed
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By
Kaulav Roy Chowdhury
