A significant legal battle unfolded in the Gujarat High Court involving the trademark infringement dispute between RASNA and RUS. The Court’s judgment addresses the nuances of trademark law, emphasizing the protection of well-known trademarks in the market. Stay tuned for insights into this case!
Issue
- Plaintiff has prayed for the Defendant to be restrained from manufacturing, selling, advertising, and distributing goods under a deceptively similar trademark.
- The Plaintiff’s trademark RASNA is well-known and registered.
- The Defendant is producing goods under the trademark RUS, which is identical or deceptively similar to RASNA.
- The Plaintiff seeks permanent restraint on the Defendant from infringing their trademark.
Arguments
- Defendant’s petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenges the order allowing application for amendment of plaint and injunction application.
- Plaintiff discovered defendant’s use of the mark RUS on their goods on various online platforms in July 2023.
- Plaintiff alleges infringement of trademark and passing-off action due to defendant’s use of the phonetically similar mark RUS on fruit juice packaging.
- Defendant applied for the registration of the mark RUS with mala fide intention, despite prior refusal by the Trade Mark Registry.
- Plaintiff, known by the mark RASNA, asserts that the mark RUS is deceptively similar and infringes on their trademark rights.
- Defendant is accused of knowingly adopting the infringing mark RUS, posing visual, phonetic, and structural similarities to plaintiff’s mark.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to delve into the merits of the defendant’s contention regarding trademark infringement of ‘RASNA’.
- The court clarifies that this particular issue is not under consideration at this stage of the proceedings.
Analysis
- The addition of variants registered in the name of the plaintiff to the well-known trademark RASNA does not change the nature of the suit.
- Allowing the amendment application does not introduce a new cause of action in the pending suit.
- The amendments sought by the plaintiff aim to add other series of trademarks associated with the trademark RASNA, not replace the original trademark.
- Defendant’s argument of changing the nature of the suit or introducing a new cause of action through the amendment was rejected.
- Commercial Court allowed the amendments to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
- Plaintiff sought amendment to include registration of variant marks such as RAS, RUSSS, RASME, RACHANA
- Defendant to be restrained from manufacturing, selling, advertising, distributing, and marketing goods under the trademark RUS
- Defendant ordered to pay token damage of Rs.50,00,000/- to Plaintiffs for damages caused
- Defendant directed to produce true and correct books of accounts for assessment of illicit profits earned
- No error found in the order passed by the Commercial Court
- Amendments allowed to avoid multiplicity of litigation
- Findings of the Commercial Court justified in the facts and circumstances of the case
Decision
- No interference within the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
- Petition dismissed for lack of merits.
- No order for costs.
Case Title: BOT ORGANIC PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. PIRUZ KHAMBHATTA
Case Number: R/SCA/7790/2024
