Skip to main content

Honest and concurrent usage cannot be a defence to a charge of infringement of trade mark

Citation : Kei Industries Limited vs Mr. Raman Kwatra & Anr., CS(COMM) 9/2021

Date of Judgment/Order : 17.05.2022

Court/Tribunal : High Court Of Delhi

Corum : Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar

Background

KEI Industries Ltd, the plaintiff, alleges infringement, by the defendants, of its registered trademark “KEI”, of which it has registration both as a word mark and as the   device mark. Accordingly, the plaint seeks a decree of permanent injunction.

The Respondent sought protection among other issues under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act, pleading honest and concurrent user of the impugned Mark, as his father OPK had been using the impugned Mark since 1966, and he was using the mark independently since 2008.

Judgment

After finding prima facie case of infringement by the Respondents, the HC looking into issue of the Doctrine of honest and concurrent usage. Section 12 is essentially a provision which enables the Registrar to permit registration of a mark which is identical or similar to an existing mark in respect of same or similar goods. It does not envisage honest and concurrent user as a defence to an allegation of infringement of a registered trade mark. Referring to the judgment of Supreme Court in Power Control Appliances v. Sumeet Machines, the HC observed that a provision which permits grant of concurrent registrations of identical or similar trade marks, if the use of the latter mark is honest and concurrent, cannot be used as a defence to a charge of infringement. Where a case of infringement is made out, therefore, injunction has necessarily to follow, and it is no defence to the defendant to urge that the user, by the defendant, of the allegedly infringing mark, was honest and concurrent.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more