Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by Jindal India Limited (plaintiff) for infringement of trademark/copyright in the marks “JINDAL”, “
” and “JINDAL with the device of map of India” for goods of the plaintiff, passing off goods, delivery upon, rendition of accounts of profits, along with further damages. Mini Pushkarna, J., directed that the defendant, their principal officers, directors, partners, agents, franchisees, servants, licensees and all others acting for and on and on their behalf are restrained from making, selling, offering for sale, advertising and in any manner dealing or any other similar, allied cognate goods using the trademark and copyright “
” or any other mark/name which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff/applicant’s registered trademark “JINDAL”, “JINDAL with the device of map of India”/ “
” and any other similar variants from doing any other activities whereby directly or indirectly infringing the plaintiff/applicant’s registered Trademarks and Copyrights “JINDAL”, “JINDAL with the device of map of India”/ “
” and any other similar variants.
The plaintiff, Jindal (India) Limited, is a company being engaged in the business of producing and selling goods under the trademarks “JINDAL” and “JINDAL” with the device of map of India.” The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of these trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and also holds copyright in the artistic works associated with these trademarks. The plaintiff’s trademarks are registered and have been used consistently since 1952, becoming distinctive of the plaintiff’s goods and services. These trademarks are considered prima facie evidence of validity as per Section 31 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
In January and June 2024, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant, Rawalwasia Steel Plant Private Limited, had adopted a similar trademark “HINDJAL HISAR” for galvanized and black steel tubes and pipes. The defendant had also applied for the registration of this trademark on 14-04-2023, on a “proposed to be used” basis. The plaintiff claimed that this mark was deceptively similar to their own and could potentially cause confusion and harm to their business.
Upon being served with the present plaint, the defendant responded via email on08-07-2024, stating that they had withdrawn the application for the infringing trademarks and had never used them commercially. Despite this, the plaintiff sought an injunction to ensure the defendant did not use or reapply for these trademarks in the future.
The Court noted that the plaintiff made a prima facie case in their favor, the balance of convenience was also in favor of the plaintiff, given the potential damage to the plaintiff’s business due to the similarity in trademarks, therefore, an interim injunction was necessary to protect the plaintiff’s rights until the matter was fully resolved.
Thus, the Court granted an interim injunction against the defendant and directed that the defendant, their principal officers, directors, partners, agents, franchisees, servants, licensees, and others acting on their behalf, are restrained from using, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in any goods using the trademark or any mark similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademarks “JINDAL,” “JINDAL with the device of map of India,” and other similar variants.
[Jindal India Limited v. Rawalwasiya Steel Plant, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4792, decided on 09-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. J. Sai Deepak with Mr. Luv Virmani, Mr. Rishabh Srivastava, Mr. Y. Sharma, Mr. P Deka and Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocates for plaintiff
