Rohini Court, Delhi: In a suit filed by the detergent company Ghadi/Ghari (‘Ghadi’) under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 55 of Copyright Act, 1957 (‘the Copyright Act’) seeking a permanent injunction, restraining infringement of trademark(s), copyright, and passing off their products as that of Ghadi, a Single Judge Bench of Vinod Yadav, J., ruled in favour of Ghadi thereby permanently injuncting the defendant from infringing upon Ghadi’s trade mark/copyright. The Court held that it was evident that the defendant adopted the impugned trade mark/label/trade dress identical with, or deceptively similar to Ghadi’s registered trade mark, which created the same commercial impression, and an unwary customer could be easily misled and deceived.
Background
Ghadi, a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling washing soap, detergent, cleaning supplies, etc., was the proprietor of the registered trade mark device of ghari/watch/clock 
/ 
in their packaging/labels. The artistic work involved in the Ghadi’s packaging/label under the said trade mark was also registered under the Copyright Act.
The defendant company was also engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading, and soliciting detergent powder, detergent cake, soap, etc.
Allegedly, in 2022, Ghadi came across the defendant’s goods under the impugned trade mark/label “26 White” 
/ 
which was deceptively similar and identical to the well-known trade mark of Ghadi. The defendant was also using the impugned tagline “Hamesha Istemaal Kare Or Kapde Me Chamak Paaye” which was similar to Ghadi’s distinctive tagline “Pahle Istemal Karen Fir Viswash Karen”.
Aggrieved, Ghadi filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant before the District Judge (Commercial), Karkardooma Court, Delhi. The District Judge passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant and appointed a Local Commissioner(‘LC’) to search and seize the impugned goods from the defendant’s premises. Accordingly, search and seizure were conducted whereby huge quantities of impugned products bearing the impugned trade mark of the defendant were seized.
Subsequently, the parties settled the dispute after the defendant admitted the proprietary rights of Ghadi’s trade mark packaging and punch line as well as undertook not to use them. The defendant also undertook to withdraw his trade mark application. In view of the joint compromise application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), the suit was decreed in favour of Ghadi.
Despite such compromise, the defendant continued to use the impugned trade mark. Aggrieved, Ghadi filed the present suit.
The Court allowed the application filed by Ghadi under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendant as well as the application filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC seeking appointment of LC for the seizure of impugned goods from the premises of the defendant. Accordingly, another seizure was conducted by the Local Commissioner wherein 207 bags and 839 pieces of infringed goods were seized, amounting to around Rs. 10,00,000.
Analysis
The Court stated that evidently, the defendant adopted the impugned trade mark/label/trade dress identical with or deceptively similar to Ghadi’s registered trade mark, which created the same commercial impression, and an unwary customer could be easily misled into buying the infringed goods as that of Ghadi. The Court stated that the defendant could not be allowed to piggyback upon Ghadi’s reputation.
Regarding the infringement of Ghadi’s tagline, the Court relied on Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3374 wherein it was held that slogans/taglines/expressions used repeatedly eventually came to identify the brand and contributed to the overall brand quality.
The Court also noted that the defendant did not oppose the LC’s report.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court held that there was no real prospect of the defendant succeeding, especially since the written statement was not taken on record due to procedural issues. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by allowing the proceedings to meander mindlessly in Court and to clog the justice delivery system. Therefore, the Court held that the present case was fit for summary judgment under Order 13-A of the CPC, as applicable to commercial disputes, to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The Court stated that no useful purpose would be served, firstly by framing the issue for the grant of damages and costs, and secondly by asking Ghadi to lead evidence in the matter. In this regard, the Court referred to Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd. v. Kunwer Sachdev 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10764.
Holding the aforesaid, the Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of Ghadi thereby restraining from infringing Ghadi’s registered trademark(s), and copyright and passing off their products as that of Ghadi.
The Court granted also damages worth Rs. 5,00,000 and a cost of Rs. 1,50,000 to Ghadi. In this regard, the Court relied upon the recovery made by the LC, Rule 20 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, and Koninlijke Philips N.V. v. Amazestore 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8198, wherein the Court laid down certain standards for grant of damages.
[RSPL Limited v. SKS Chemical Industries, CS (Comm.) No.287 of 2024, decided on 27-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the plaintiff: Anil Kumar Sahu
For the respondent: Namit Saxena and Isha Nagpal
Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999 HERE
