Defendants Chose To Imitate Manner In Which Plaintiff Prints Its Logo: Delhi HC Provides Relief To ‘Prestige’ In Design Piracy Case
The Delhi High Court has provided relief to TTK Prestige Ltd. in a design piracy and trademark infringement case on the ground that the defendants chose to imitate the manner in which the plaintiff prints its logo.
The case dealt with the alleged design piracy and trade mark infringement and passing off, by the defendants, of the Svachh line of pressure cookers manufactured by the plaintiff. The defendants sold the pressure cookers under the name ‘PARISTONE’.
A Single Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar held, “The plaintiff has placed material on record, including its annual turnover, which indicates that it has considerable goodwill and reputation in the market. Even otherwise, once the defendants have chosen to copy the manner in which the plaintiff has visualised its mark and also the manner in which the mark is affixed on the pressure cooker, as well as the design of the pressure cooker itself, it can hardly lie in the mouth of the defendants to question the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. That the defendants have chosen to imitate the manner in which plaintiff prints its logo is itself testimony to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff, in the perception of the defendant itself.”
The Bench said that in any event, as the defendants have clearly copied the trade dress of the plaintiff insofar the visual appearance on its mark is concerned, a case of passing off is made out.
Advocate Hemant Singh appeared on behalf of the plaintiff while none appeared on behalf of the defendants.
Factual Background -
The plaintiff manufactured pressure cookers under the name ‘PRESTIGE’ and the counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that the aspect of design infringement was squarely covered by the judgment rendered by the court in TTK Prestige Ltd. v. KCM Appliances Pvt. Ltd. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2129, which was also a case where the defendants were alleged to have infringed the registered design of the plaintiff in respect of its Svachh line of pressure cooker. The same registration was asserted in the present case.
Insofar as the aspect of trade mark infringement and passing off is concerned, the counsel submitted that, though it may be arguable whether “PRESTIGE” was phonetically similar to “PARISTONE”, the two marks were clearly visually identical, with the defendants having adopted a trade dress which was a clear imitative copy of the plaintiff’s trade dress used for its “PRESTIGE” mark. Moreover, it was submitted that the arrangement of various features on the outer packing of the defendants’ product was also identical to the arrangement of features on the packing of plaintiff’s product.
The High Court in the above regard observed, “… in the present case, there is no difference in height between the lids in respect of which suit design had been granted and the lid of the pressure cooker forming subject matter of controversy. … Adverting, now, to the aspect of trade mark infringement and passing off, I am of the opinion that, while the aspect of infringement of the rival marks may be arguable in view of the phonetic difference between the marks “PRESTIGE” and “PARISTONE”, nonetheless, the trade dress adopted by the defendants is almost identical to the and trade dress of the plaintiff, with identically printed white letters in a similar font on an identical pink background and a black swirl/line below it.”
The Court said that there are no such distinguishing features between the parties barring the name itself as would impress itself on the mind of a consumer of average intelligence and, more importantly, imperfect recollection, so as to enable him to distinguish the former from the latter, when seen at different points of time.
“There is also substance in Mr. Hemant Singh’s contention that, even on the outer cartons, the manner in which the mark has been affixed on the pressure cookers is also identical and that, therefore, a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, who may recollect the visual impression of the mark, is likely to confuse one with the other”, also said the Court.
The Court noted that a prima facie case of passing off, by the defendants, of the plaintiff’s product, by using a design which is nearly identical, a trade dress for the mark which is almost identical and overall appearance of the pressure cooker, including the manner in which the said mark is affixed on the body thereof, which is also deceptively similar, therefore, exists.
“… the plaintiff would be entitled to an interlocutory injunction, both on the grounds of design infringement as well as passing off, by the defendants, of its product as that of the plaintiff. … the defendants as well as all others acting on their behalf shall stand restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, exporting, advertising or in any other manner directly or indirectly dealing in pressure cookers bearing the impugned design or any other design which infringes the suit design no. 324727-001”, directed the Court.
The Court further restrained the defendants from using the trade dress for its mark which was almost identical to the trade dress used by the plaintiff for its ‘Prestige’ mark. However, the Court added that the defendants would not be restrained, for the present, from using the mark ‘PARISTONE’ in any other trade dress, which is not similar to the trade dress of the petitioner’s mark, on pressure cookers which do not imitate or infringe the registered design of the plaintiff’s Svachh range of pressure cookers.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the prayer of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants.
Cause Title- TTK Prestige Ltd. v. Arjun Ram & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:7812)
