TM Infringement| Mere Insertion Of Figure Above Word "MONSTER" Does Not Mitigate Fact Of Infringement In Any Fashion: Delhi HC

Finding that the Defendant was, in the past, selling sportswear and sports goods using the impugned mark of Plaintiff i.e., MONSTER on online platforms including Flipkart, the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff and imposed punitive costs of Rs. One lakh on the Defendant to be paid to the Plaintiff by way of a crossed cheque.

The High Court clarified that mere insertion of the figure above the word, in the defendant’s mark does not mitigate, in any fashion, the fact of infringement or of the defendant consciously seeking to pass off its products as those of the plaintiff.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that “as the defendant acted with clear dishonesty, with the transparent intent of copying the plaintiff’s mark and passing off its goods as those of the plaintiff, it is not possible for the Court to let the defendant of unconditionally”.

Advocate Saif Khan appeared for the Plaintiff, whereas Advocate Bhawana Nanda appeared for the Respondent.

The brief facts of the case were that the plaintiff is packing and selling energy drinks and energy beverages. The plaint also contains assertions vouchsafing the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation, both nationally as well as internationally. The plaintiff also carries out its operations through the websites www.monsterenergy.com, www.monsterbevcorp.com and www.monsterarmy.com. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the use, by the defendant, of the identical mark MONSTER, with an identical logo as well as a deceptively similar device mark, whereunder the defendant has been selling sportswear, sports apparels, and associated products. A suit was filed to seek order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, his partners etc from selling, offering for sale, manufacturing or in any manner commercially dealing in any goods bearing the trade mark MONSTER (word per se) or any stylized representation thereof including and/or Claw Icon or any mark identical or deceptively like the Plaintiff's MONSTER Trademarks/Logos/Trade-name, amounting to infringement of the Plaintiffs' registered trademarks.

After considering the submission, the Bench found that a local Commissioner was appointed to visit the premises of the defendant and effect search and seizures.

“The report of the local Commissioner reveals that 145 articles, which bore infringing marks, were found in the premises of the defendant, all of which were inventorised and seized and continue to remain seized till date”, added the Bench.

The Bench further found that consequent to issuance of summons, the defendant appeared before the Court on July 8, 2022 and submitted that he does not wish to continue use of the impugned mark either as a word mark or as a device mark.

When the matter was referred to mediation by the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre before which, apparently, the defendant did not appear, pointed the Bench.

The Bench therefore emphasized that it is clear, on the face of it, that the defendant has copied the registered trademark of the plaintiff, both in word and device form.

Noticing that the word clearly constitutes the prominent, and dominant, feature of the impugned mark, the Bench highlighted that a customer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, who knows of the plaintiff’s mark, and encounters, later, the defendant’s mark, is bound to regard both as belonging to the same person, with a mere figure of a monster added over the word by way of embellishment.

The High Court therefore decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiff.

Cause Title: Monster Energy Company v. Vineet Deshwal Trading [Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC: 6403]

Click here to read/download the Judgment