AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anish Dayal, J.
I.A. 14711/2019 (Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC)
This application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’] has been filed as part of the suit filed by plaintiff seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants and all those acting for/on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, advertising, dealing with, in any manner footwear, apparel, accessories, and other products using the mark [‘impugned mark’ or ‘defendants’ X mark’] or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademark
[‘plaintiff’s X mark’] and other attendant relief.
Factual Background
Plaintiff’s X mark is derived from their ‘SPARX’ logo and has been used in a standalone form in relation to its footwear products sold under the ‘SPARX’ brand. Plaintiff’s grievance is against the defendants who started using defendants’ X mark, which was deceptively similar, for footwear as well, being identical goods. Defendants’ brand and trademark is ‘HRX’/‘HRX BY HRITHIK ROSHAN’ and the defendants’ X mark has been used as a standalone mark on their products causing confusion, passing off, and dilution of the plaintiff’s mark. Representations of the rival marks, the placement, and actual use on the products have been tabulated by the plaintiff as under:
| Plaintiff's "X" Device Mark | Defendants' "X" Device Mark |
|---|---|
| Similarities between both the "X" device marks: a) The artistic and arbitrary choice to extend the right corner of the "X" device mark in an upward diagonal direction. b) The artistic and arbitrary choice of keeping the arm tilted towards left wider and shorter than the other arm of the "X". | |
| Plaintiff's Product | Defendants' Product |
|---|---|
Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff
Mr. Saif Khan, counsel for plaintiff claimed that plaintiff has the following registration:
| TRADEMARK | |
| APPLICATION NO. | 2271841 |
| CLASS | 25 |
| USER CLAIMED SINCE | 01st April, 2002 |
| APPLIED ON | 25th January, 2012 |
| REGISTERED ON | 28th June, 2019 |
Plaintiff claims prior user of the mark, being engaged in manufacture and sale of footwear since 1976 and, as of today, claims to be one of the largest producers of footwear in India, manufacturing over 4 lakh pairs every day and over 12 crores pairs in a calendar year. To substantiate and prove user by the plaintiff, advertisements appended in the suit documents for the year 2006 onwards have been relied upon. One such advertisement is extracted herein for ease of reference:
Invoices showing sales since August 2005 have also been relied upon which are the advertisement bookings in various newspapers for the product ‘SPARX’. As opposed to this, it was submitted that the defendants launched their products in November 2013 under the ‘HRX’ brand and the use of the defendants’ X mark came up much later. Some other invoices were also relied upon from the year 2005 which showed sales of products under the brand ‘SPARX’.
In addition, plaintiff also has the following copyright registration:
| LABEL | ‘SPARX’ |
| REGISTRATION NO. | A-100638/2013 |
| APPLIED ON | 07th December, 2011 |
| GRANTED ON | 27th May, 2013 |
Plaintiff, thus, claims valuable goodwill and reputation in plaintiff’s X mark stating that they have extensively advertised the same in all forms of media, including celebrity endorsements. Plaintiff claims to have spent large amounts of money towards marketing and promotion, stating that the sales of the products marked with plaintiff’s X mark run into massive annual sales, upwards of Rs.500 Crores in the Financial Year 2015-2016. Plaintiff’s X mark is claimed to be inherently distinctive and entitled to highest level of protection. Defendants, on the other hand, had dishonestly adopted the plaintiff’s X mark by using a similar device mark.
It was clarified that the plaintiff was not claiming any rights per se over the letter ‘X’ but only in the stylistic representation thereof, and use in relation to footwear and related goods. It was further clarified that plaintiff was only concerned about footwear products and did not have any issue relating to other products. Counsel for plaintiff submitted that a unique mark is usually adopted for shoes like the device mark adopted by Nike , Adidas
, and New Balance
. While defendants had applied for their X mark in other classes, it had no registration in Class 25, and their earliest invoice as per their own documents was of January 2014. It was, therefore, submitted that the similarity of marks was evident from – first, a perusal of the said marks; secondly, the manner of use; thirdly, placement on identical products; fourthly, the average consumer would not be able to notice any marginal differences; fifthly, there was phonetic and conceptual similarity in the said marks; sixthly, the class of consumers would be identical i.e. for footwear; seventhly, defendants’ adoption is evidently dishonest having used of the plaintiff’s ‘X’ mark; eighthly, there is no other footwear brand of repute using such a stylized mark; ninthly, defendants’ X mark would cause confusion and association with the plaintiff’s products; tenthly, an initial interest confusion would be caused to a potential consumer in view of both the products; and lastly, defendants’ X mark erodes distinctiveness and source of identification of the plaintiff’s X mark.
It was pointed out that despite the defendants’ claim that their brand ‘HRX’ had been created from the attributes of the Bollywood Actor Hritik Roshan (originally defendant no.4 in the suit and deleted later from the array of parties), the actor himself filed an affidavit dated 5th November, 2019 stating that the brand ‘HRX’ was not his and he was only endorsing the same.
Submissions on behalf of the defendants
Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Counsel, on behalf of the defendants, refuting submissions made by the plaintiff’s counsel, stated that the issue was only relating to stylization of ‘X’ which was an extremely small variation and, in any event, stylization of the letter ‘X’ would not allow too much ingenuity. He contended that plaintiff could not have a monopoly over the letter ‘X’ which, in any case, they do not seek. There are numerous uses of the mark ‘X’ on products and plaintiff had not disclosed to the Court that the marketplace was crowded with such marks.
Attention was particularly drawn to a settlement that the plaintiff had arrived at with one ‘Soccer International Pvt. Ltd’ [‘Soccer International’]. where both parties had agreed to mutually co-exist in the market and not oppose each other’s trademark applications for ‘X’ device marks. The marks of plaintiff previously opposed by Soccer International, and that of Soccer International previously opposed by plaintiff were annexed by the defendants; extracted as follows:
Senior Counsel strongly asserted that plaintiff should have disclosed this agreement to the Court which estopped them from claiming that the ‘X’ device mark was their own and no one else could have a right over it. Having agreed to co-exist with another similar device mark in the same Class 25, it would not lie in the mouth of the plaintiff to assert exclusivity. Reliance in this regard was placed on the decision in Corn Products Refining Company v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142.
The defendants adopted the trademark ‘HRX’ and defendants’ X mark in the year 2010 for the lifestyle brand dedicated towards fitness. The products were launched in the year 2013 for which reliance was placed on news articles annexed in the defendants’ documents. The device mark had been carved out from defendants’ ‘HRX’ mark, standing for “extreme”, which is commonly used in the context of sportswear.
Defendants applied for the registration of their device mark ‘X’ as follows:
| TRADEMARK | |
| APPLICATION NO. | 2092193 |
| CLASS | 25 |
| USER CLAIMED SINCE | 01st May, 2010 |
| APPLIED ON | 31st January, 2011 |
The defendants have been selling their products since 2013 for which various news articles, promotional materials were appended as part of the defendants’ documents. It was submitted that there was no document filed by the plaintiff to show that any consumer had been confused between the products of the respective parties in the last 10 years. It was reiterated that the ‘X’ device marks are used in relation with the plaintiff’s main trademark and brand ‘SPARX’ and there is no standalone reputation of the device mark of the plaintiff’s ‘X’ mark. All invoices, sales figures, and advertisements are in relation to the trademark ‘SPARX’ and no invoice mentions the plaintiff’s ‘X’ mark. The use by the plaintiff of its mark on few shoes:
Plaintiff, while registering its ‘X’, mark admitted that the mark was different from various third party’s ‘X’ trademarks and could co-exist in the market. The marks cited during the registration of the plaintiff’s mark were tabulated by the defendants as under:
| S. No. | Name of the Entity | Images of Products Bearing the Mark 'X' |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | XTEP | XTEP NEW TECHNOMANLE XSTEP 1000 DESIGN |
XEP STYLISH & SPORTY SHOES XEP
| 2. | Payntr X |
3.Vector X
The defendants placed on record the search report for the ‘X’ label mark by the Registry as part of the examination report to the plaintiff’s mark. The extract is reproduced as under:
SWEATERS, CARDIGANS, TURTLENECKS, VESTS, SWEAT SHIRTS TANK TOPS, JERSEYS, BASEBALL SHIRTS, GOLF SHIRTS, JOGGING SHIRTS, SKIRTS, SHORTS, GYM SHORTS, TENNIS SHORTS, JEANS, PANTS, WORK PANTS, TROUSERS, SLACKS, TUNICS, DRESSES, JUMPERS, SUITS, SUN SUITS, COVER-ALLS, OVERALLS, SWEATSHIRTS, SWEAT PANTS, SWEAT SUITS, WARM-UP SUITS, JACKETS, BLAZERS, GLOVES, MITTENS, SCARVES, COATS, SHAWLS, SKI JACKETS, SKI PANTS, PARKAS, CAFES, PONCHOS, RUNNING SUITS, SMOCKS, JUMP SUITS, RAIN WEAR, UNDERWEAR, LINGERIE, HOSIERY, SOCKS, TIGHTS, LEGGINGS, LEG WARMERS, NECK WEAR NAMELY NECK TIES, COSTUMES, SLEEPWEAR, ROBES, DRESSING GOWNS, SWIMWEAR, BABY CLOTHES, SNOWBROARD PANTS AND SNOWBROARD JACKETS, SKATEBOARD PANTS, SKATEBOARD SHORTS, BELTS, BANDANNA, NECKBANDS, WRISTBANDS, SUSPENDERS, BEACH WEAR, SHOES, SNEAKERS, ATHLETIC SHOES, BOOTS, SANDALS, SKATEBOARD FOOTWEAR, SUPERS AND BOOTIES, CAPS, HATS, BEANIES, HEADBANDS, SWEATBANDS, BANDANAS, EAR MUFFS, VISORS AND SUN VISORS.
1352856 25 X (LABEL) 1337 X-TECHNOLOGY SWISS KANTONSTRASSE 146,8897 Opposed GMBH PREDENBACH, SWITZERLAND.
APPLICATION DATE 17/10/2006 14:48:03
GOODS/SERVICE CLOTHING, FOOTWEAR, HEADGEAR.
1457160 25 X (LABEL) 1360 HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED. HINDUSTAN LEVER Registered HOUSE, 105/106, BACKBAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI - 406 028.
APPLICATION DATE 18/12/2006
GOODS/SERVICE READY MADE GARMENTS, FOOTWEAR, SHOES.
1407881 25 X (LOGO) 1371 NOBLE FIBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 300 PALM STREET, Registered SCRANTON, PENNSYLVANIA 18508, U.S.A.
APPLICATION DATE 20/12/2006
GOODS/SERVICE CLOTHING, NAMELY, BATHING SUITS, INFANT CLOTH DIAPERS, GLOVES, HATS, IN UNIFORMS, SHOES, SOCKS, PANTYHOSE, PANTS, SHORTS, TIGHTS, SWEAT SUITS, UNDERWEAR, AND UNDERWEAR, DRIVING GLOVES, JERSEYS, T-SHIRTS AND WAISTBANDS IN THE NATURE OF BELTS.
1413168 25 X (LOGO) 1388 LENEWESER GMBH & CO. KG. WITTEKINDSTRASSE 16 - Opposed 18, 22051 HERFORD, GERMANY.
APPLICATION DATE 12/01/2006 12:50:00
GOODS/SERVICE ARTICLES OF CLOTHING, SPORTSWEAR, BELTS, SHOES, SPORTS SHOES, HEADGEAR, CLOTHING INCLUDING BOOTS, SHOES AND SLIPPERS, ALL OTHER GOODS INCLUDED IN INTERNATIONAL CLASS 25
1415535 25 X (LOGO) 1366 LENEWESER GMBH & CO. KG. WITTEKINDSTRASSE 16 - Registered 18, 22051 HERFORD, GERMANY.
APPLICATION DATE 22/01/2006
GOODS/SERVICE ARTICLES OF CLOTHING, SPORTSWEAR, BELTS, SHOES, SPORTS SHOES, HEADGEAR, CLOTHING INCLUDING BOOTS, SHOES AND SLIPPERS, ALL OTHER GOODS INCLUDED IN INTERNATIONAL CLASS 25
1415309 25 X (LOGO) 1383 LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD. SIGMA SOFT-TECH Opposed PARK, 8TH FLOOR, DELTA TOWER NO.7, VARTHUR MAIN ROAD WHITEFIELD, BANGALORE-560066, KARNATAKA STATE.
APPLICATION DATE 06/02/2006 18:50:00
GOODS/SERVICE GARMENTS & CLOTHING INCLUDING READY MADE CLOTHING, SPORTS WEAR, CHILDREN'S CLOTHING INCLUDING UNDERWEAR AND BABY'S NAPKINS, BODY LINEN, CLOTHING, FOOTWEAR, HEADGEAR
1477117 25 X LOGO, 1372 GRAZIANI ANDREA WALTER ALBINI VIA PO 3714, ORVIETO Registered (FERN) ITALY.
APPLICATION DATE 07/08/2006
GOODS/SERVICE OVERCOATS, OVERALLS, SHIRTS, BLOUSES, BRASSIERES, CORSETS, SINGLETS, PENTANTS, MOHTOCHINS, PYJAMAS, DRESSING GOWNS, PULLOVERS, BATH ROBES, BATHING SUITS, BATHING GLOVES AND MUFFS, CARDIGANS, JERSEYS, NECKTIES, WICKERCHIEFS, SCARVES, SWEATERS, BROWN ALBINI STOCKINGS, TIGHTS, TROUSERS, LEGGINGS, SKIRTS, JACKETS, JERKINS, VESTS, WAISTCOATS, JUMPERS, TRACK SUITS, JEANS, PANTIES, PANTS, BERMUDA SHORTS
1478061 25 X 20 1373 MR. BABU SINGH M. (LABEL) INDIA HUGU BUILDING 3RD Opposed FLOOR, ROOM NO.22, ABBAD PHALAV MARD, DADAR (E), MUMBAI-408014.
APPLICATION DATE 11/09/2006 12:55:05
https://pindsonline.gov.in/irregist/reconreport.aspx?APPLICATION_NUMBER=AVP&V=OK&K=OK&F=2V0000
GOODS/SERVICE READYMADE GARMENTS.
1881438 25 X 1933 SARABJEET SINGH KOHLI A-2027 (ANALPURI) NEW DELHI-59 Registered GOODS/SERVICE READYMADE GARMENTS INCLUDED ALL IN CLASS 25.
1708527 25 X (DEVICE 1433 X-TECHNOLOGY SWISS GMBH SAMSTADERNSTRASSE 45,8833 WOLLERALSWITZERLAND. Registered APPLICATION DATE 26/03/2007 14:20:00
GOODS/SERVICE ALL KIND OF UNDER GARMENTS.
1747372 25 X4 ABDUL DAFOOR, M.V. 1ST FLOOR, CALICUT MALL, STADIUMJUNCTION PUTHYARARQAD, CALICUT-073952, KERALA. Objected APPLICATION DATE 06/06/2007 16:26:38
GOODS/SERVICE CLOTHING, FOOTWEAR, HEADGEAR, BEING GOODS INCLUDED IN CLASS 25
1700525 25 X5 MR. RAKESH KUMAR 6241, SHOP NO.-4, GALI NO.-1, BLOCK, NO.- 6, DEV NAGAR, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI - 110 005. Objected APPLICATION DATE 21/05/2008 12:44:56
GOODS/SERVICE READYMADE GARMENTS, CLOTHING, FOOTWEAR, HEADGEAR.
1881438 25 X 1933 SARABJEET SINGH KOHLI A-2027 (ANALPURI) NEW DELHI-59 Registered APPLICATION DATE 17/06/2008 18:11:25
GOODS/SERVICE SPORTSWEAR & READYMADE GARMENTS, CASUAL WEAR.
1708527 25 X (DEVICE 1433 X-TECHNOLOGY SWISS GMBH SAMSTADERNSTRASSE 45,8833 WOLLERALSWITZERLAND. Registered APPLICATION DATE 19/06/2009 13:50:19
GOODS/SERVICE CLOTHING, FOOT WEAR, HEADGEAR.
1747372 25 X4 ABDUL DAFOOR, M.V. 1ST FLOOR, CALICUT MALL, STADIUMJUNCTION PUTHYARARQAD, CALICUT-073952, KERALA. Objected APPLICATION DATE 23/10/2008 10:10:00
GOODS/SERVICE CLOTHING (PARTICULARLY DOTHES)
1700525 25 X5 MR. RAKESH KUMAR 6241, SHOP NO.-4, GALI NO.-1, BLOCK, NO.- 6, DEV NAGAR, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI - 110 005. Objected APPLICATION DATE 05/12/2009 16:30:54
GOODS/SERVICE READYMADE GARMENTS.
1881438 25 X 1933 SARABJEET SINGH KOHLI A-2027 (ANALPURI) NEW DELHI-59 Registered APPLICATION DATE 17/06/2009 17:21:00
GOODS/SERVICE FOOTWEAR, HOSIERY AND READYMADE GARMENTS.
https://pindacrine.gov/ineregister/examnport.aspx?APPLICATION_NUMBER=VIFalV1x4xSkukC8mTREV8(3C)
In the reply to the examination report, the plaintiff had commented that various cited ‘X’ marks were dissimilar to the applicants’ mark. The said reply is extracted as under:
ASHOKA LAW OFFICE 150
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW CONSULTANTS & LAWYERS
ASHOKA HOUSE 8, CENTRAL LANE, BENGALI MARKET CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-1, INDIA
Ph. 23713492, 23752162, 9868280797 Fax: 23351300
email: [email protected]
Unit Section: EXM.
Reply to Examination Report
The Registrar of Trade Marks Office of the Trade Marks Registry NEW DELHI.
Dated: 05-03-2013 Agent Code: 4263 Attorney Code: 6032
Application no./date 2271841 dt.25-01-2012. Applicant Relaxo Footwear Ltd. Trade Mark Class 25 Dear Sir,
This is in reference to the examination report dated 28-12-2012.
On the basis of the following submissions, we request the Ld. Registrar/Hon'ble tribunal to reconsider the subject trademark matter by removing/waving the objection(s) raised in the examination report and allow the subject trademark application to proceed to registration.
With respect to objection raised under section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the details of marks cited in the search report are as follows:-
Cited Mark Application/Registration no. Current Status Comments X 788233Dt.20-01-1998. Opposed by Chanel Ltd. The cited mark is dissimilar to the applicant's subject trademark.The goods under the cited mark are also dissimilar. 888890Dt.29-11-1999. Registered but not renewed after 29-11- The cited mark is not renewed till date.The goods under the cited mark are also dissimilar.
2009. X PLUS 1038625 Dt.21-08-2001. Opposed by Hybo Hindustan. The cited mark is dissimilar. The goods under the cited mark are also dissimilar. The cited mark is already under opposition. X 1185969 Dt.26-03-2003. Opposed by Expose Apparels. The cited mark is opposed. The cited mark is dissimilar. 1185970 Dt.26-03-2003. Registered. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. 1199259 Dt.19-05-2003. Registered. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. XX10 1253971 Dt.08-12-2003. Registered. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. 1308959 Dt.15-09-2004. Registered. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. 1392000 Dt.17-10-2005. Opposed by Hybo Hindustan. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. The cited mark is opposed. 1407183 Dt.19-12-2005. Registered. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. The goods under the cited mark are also dissimilar. 1407591 Dt.20-12-2005. Registered. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption.
152 X LOGO 1413168 Dt.12-01-2006. Opposed by Maxwell Industries Ltd. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. The cited mark is opposed. X 1415535 Dt.23-01-2006. Registered. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. X 1419309 Dt.06-02-2006. Opposed by Maxwell Industries Ltd. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. The cited mark is opposed. X WALTER ALBRO 1477117 Dt.07-08-2006. Registered. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. X 1478061 Dt.11-08-2006. Opposed by Maxwell Industries Ltd. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. The cited mark is opposed. X 1517673 Dt.05-01-2007. Opposed by Maxwell Industries Ltd. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. The cited mark is opposed. X5 LABEL 1543680 Dt.26-03-2007. Opposed by Maxwell Industries Ltd. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. The cited mark is opposed. X 1588460 Dt.08-08-2007. Registered. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. X 1689149 Dt.21-05-2008. Opposed by Maxwell Industries Ltd. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. The cited mark is opposed.
1700126 Dt.17-06-2008. Registered. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. The goods under the cited mark are also dissimilar. 1700827 Dt.19-06-2008. Registered. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. X4 XXXX 1747372 Dt.23-10-2008. Objected. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. The goods under the cited mark are also dissimilar. X5 1760925 DT.05-12-2008. Objected. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. 1851438 DT.17-08-2009. Registered. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. The goods under the cited mark are also dissimilar. X-10 1995001 Dt.19-07-2010. Objected. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. The goods under the cited mark are also dissimilar. 2005890 Dt.09-08-2010. Objected. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption. The goods under the cited mark are also dissimilar. X 2010984 Dt.18-08-2010. Objected. The cited mark is dissimilar. The cited mark is subsequent in adoption.
2190956Dt.16-08-2011. Objected. The cited mark is dissimilar.The cited mark is subsequent in adoption.The goods under the cited mark are also dissimilar. 2271841Dt.25-01-2012. Objected. The cited mark is applicant's subject trademark. At the outset, we submit that the objection raised under section 11 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by the Ld. Registrar in the examination report pertaining to cited marks in the search report should be waived/removed on the basis of following submissions:-
- The cited mark under no.2271841 is the subject trademark of the applicant. Hence, the objection pertaining to it should be removed.
- As regards the other cited marks, upon applying the judicial principle of entirety, the subject trademark is visually, phonetically, structurally and conceptually dissimilar from the other cited marks in the search report.
- As the other cited marks are visually, phonetically, conceptually and structurally dissimilar from the subject trademark, the likelihood of confusion and deception among the consumers, traders, etc. of trade channels is completely ruled out.
- Apart from being dissimilar, the cited mark under no.888890 is not renewed and hence, not valid till date. Accordingly, the objection pertaining to the said cited mark should be waived/removed.
- Apart from being dissimilar, the cited mark under no.788233, 1038625, 1185969, 1392000, 1413168, 1419309, 1478061, 1517673, 1543680, 1689149 are opposed by third person and hence, no rights entail in respect of it till date. Accordingly, the objection pertaining to the said cited mark should be waived/removed.
- Apart from being dissimilar marks, the goods mentioned under the cited marks under nos.888890, 1038625, 1407591, 1477117, 1478061, 1517673, 1543680, 1700126, 1747372, 1760925, 1851438, 1995001, 2005890 and 2190956 are entirely dissimilar. Therefore, the consumers and traders of trade channels would also be dissimilar by virtue of which fact the likelihood of confusion and public deception does not arise. Hence, the issue of conflict also does not arise with respect to the same.
- Further, since the subject trademark is being used by the applicant since 01-04-2002 in respect of the subject goods, which is prior to the adoption and alleged use, if any (which is denied) of the cited marks, the applicant possesses better proprietary rights in respect of the subject trademark. By virtue of prior adoption and use, the consumers, traders, etc. of the trade channels have associated the subject trademark in respect of the subject goods with the applicant only.
The plaintiff, therefore, cannot approbate and reprobate, having stated that various ‘X’ devices were dissimilar to their mark. In any event, this minor variation in ‘X’ should be permissible.
Therefore, it was claimed by Senior Counsel for defendants that this was a crowded marketplace and the plaintiff would have to discharge the burden of proof to show that these ‘X’ marks are not being utilized by the parties.
The dissimilarities between the two marks were also brought out by Senior Counsel for defendants. There were stark differences in the two visuals, as per them. The defendants had provided the following table to articulate their points of differences, extracted hereunder for ease of reference:
| Plaintiff | Defendants | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| • Straight First line of X • Tilted Second Line of X • Flat ending on the top right • No taper from left to right • Single block left to right | • No tilt • First line tilted in the manner in which the alphabet X is commonly written • Second line titled in the manner in which the alphabet X is commonly written • Sharp ending on top right • A marked taper from left to right • Multicolour two lines from bottom to top |
Senior Counsel for the defendants also pointed out that third parties were in fact using the said mark as is evident from the listings on Amazon and other sites. As an illustration, for the brand ‘X-STEP’ and ‘PAYNTR-X’ and ‘VECTOR-X’, the following Amazon listings were shown as under:
Click to open expanded view
Brand: Payntr
Payntr X Rubber Stud CAMO
-25% *2,849
M.A.C. #Aur8
Inclusive of all taxes
EMI starts at #138. No Cost EMI available EMI options
Offers
No Cost EMI
Upto #128.31 EMI interest savings on Amazon Pay 10/01...
1 offer
Bank Offer
Upto #142.4 discount on Cashback Cn
1 offer
Free Delivery
10 days Return & Exchange
Amazon Delivered
Secure transaction
Size:
11 UK
Colour: White
Size Chart
- Sole: Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
- Cosure: Lace-Up
- Fit Type: Regular
- Shoe Width: Medium
- Sole: Ethylene Vinyl Acetate
- Cosure: Lace-Up
- Fit Type: Regular
- Show More
amazon business
Are you a business? Get GST invoice and bulk discounts
Sign in/Create a free business account
Note: The order quantity is limited to 3 units per customer.
Please note that orders which exceed the quantity limit will be auto-conceled. This is applicable across sellers.
*2,849
FREE delivery Monday, 31 July. Details
Deliver to New Delhi 110065
In stock
Sold by GAURIK FASHIONS PVT LTD. and Delivered by Amazon.
Quantity: 1
Add to Cart
Buy Now
Secure transaction
Add to Wish List
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
It was also pointed out in relation to ‘VECTOR-X’ that they had stated that they entered India in 1999 under the said brand and ‘X-STEP’ in 1987. It was, therefore, submitted that these ‘X’ device marks had prior user and, therefore, the plaintiff could not claim any exclusivity in that regard. Moreover, the registration application by the defendants was made in 2011 while the registration application of the plaintiff was made in 2012. Besides, it was argued that there was no balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff since the defendants had been using the trademark for over 10 years and had built goodwill and reputation in the said mark. Furthermore, there was no scope of confusion between the products as they both use their primary trademarks ‘SPARX’ and ‘HRX’ on their products and the respective ‘X’ marks were only used along with the same.
Senior Counsel for defendants relied upon the following decisions in support of their arguments:
Corn Products Refining Company v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd., AIR 1960 SC 142 on the issue of two marks containing a common element which is also contained in a number of other marks and, therefore, causes purchasers to pay attention to other features of the respective marks. This reliance was placed on the “other features” test.
J.R. Kapoor v. Micronix India, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 215 which was an issue between ‘MICRONIX’ and ‘MICROTEL’ where the word ‘M’ was used as part of the logo where the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that the visual effect of both the logos cannot be the same on the minds of the users;
Renaissance Hotel Holdings Inc. v. B. Vijaya Sai &Ors., (2022) 5 SCC 1, where reliance was placed on para 48 of the said decision.
Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, 1964 SCC OnLine 14 where reliance was on para 29 of the decision.
Intex Technologies v. AZ Tech, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7392 where reliance was placed on para 31 and 32.
On the aspect of use by third parties, reliance was placed on Premiere SPG and WVG Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Football Association Premiere League Ltd. & Anr., 2024:DHC:427 where it was stated that the appellant therein could not have a monopoly over the word ‘PREMIERE’ considering it is a word of general use;
Vasundhara Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirat Vinodbhai Jadwani, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3370 in particular para 38 to 41.
On concealment by the plaintiff of fact, reliance was placed on S.K. Sachdeva &Anr. v. Shree Educare Ltd. &Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6708 where reliance on para 17 and 18.
On balance of convenience, reliance was placed on Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Ltd., (1999) 7 SCC 1 wherein guidelines for grant of interlocutory injunction had been culled out in para 24.
Submissions in Rejoinder on behalf of the Plaintiff
Counsel for plaintiff dealt with the issue of their settlement with Soccer International for the ‘X’ device mark stating that it was a different device and the said entity was not a big player. Even otherwise, agreement to co-exist with a third party does not take away the right in itself of the plaintiff. Further, there were no third parties who had a prior user than that of the plaintiff. Reliance was placed on Pankaj Goyal v. Dabur India Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1744 to substantiate that private settlement with the third party cannot offer license to use the same wherein para 24 of the said decision was highlighted which in turn relies upon the decision in Prakash Roadline v. Prakash Parcel Service, 42 (1992) DLT 390.
Moreover, the 2011 application that the defendants were referring to as being prior to that of the plaintiff was in Class 18 and not Class 25. Moreover, the Act does not recognize the concept of a crowded marketplace, for this reliance was placed on para 32 of the decision in Under Armour Inc. v. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd, (2023) 300 DLT 573.
Reliance was also placed on Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd., 2023:DHC:2390 where it was noted by the Court that “common to register” is qualitatively different from “common to trade” and that one may register a mark and leave it unused or at best make sporadic appearances. Such registrations do not divest the mark of distinctiveness to disentitle the plaintiff to an injunction.
Reliance was also placed on Automatic Electric Ltd. v. R K Dhawan & Anr., 77 (1999) DLT 292 on the proposition that if defendant itself ascertained rights in the trademark, it cannot contend that the trademark is generic or common. Reliance was further placed on Swiss Bike Vertriebs GMBH Subsidiary of Accell Group v. Reliance Brands Ltd., 2024:DHC:1884 to contend that estoppel can only apply inter se parties and not with regards to third parties.
Sur Rejoinder by the Defendants
Senior Counsel for the defendants placed a short sur rejoinder stating that – firstly, the amended plaint was filed in December 2019 and settlement with a third party was still not disclosed; secondly, that the 2011 application was indeed in Class 25; thirdly, that there was a different enforcement criteria for device mark; fourthly, it was agreed that ‘X’ had to be disregarded by the plaintiff since it was common to market place, and, therefore, other features would have to be seen as per Corn Products (supra); fifthly, the decision in Under Armour (supra) was distinguished on crowded market place stating that its concept was not rejected on law but only rejected on facts; sixthly, the decision in Glaxo Smith Kline (supra) was distinguished on the basis of para 7.2.9; and lastly, reliance was made on Pankaj Goyal (supra) in particular para 23 stating that that was not a case of permitted use but a settlement agreeing to co-exist.
Analysis
Having considered the submissions by the counsel and perused the documents on record, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the injunction for inter alia the following reasons:
The respective ‘X’ device marks of the plaintiff and the defendants are being used not in isolation but in conjunction with their respective trademarks ‘SPARX’ and ‘HRX’. It is evident that the consumer is not purchasing a product under the mark 'X' but for the brand ‘SPARX’ and ‘HRX’, respectively. The confusion, therefore, does not arise in the first place for a consumer. The ‘X’ device marks are only placed on certain parts of the shoe/footwear by the respective companies. The question of it being mistaken for an isolated device mark to identify the source of goods does not arise.
A perusal of the mark cited in examination of the plaintiff's registration show that there were a number of ‘X’ marks which were available on the Trade Marks Register including device marks. With regard to one of these device marks being used by Soccer International Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff did enter into a settlement and agreed to co-exist. Even though the plaintiff's assertion is that they were not big players, it goes to show that the plaintiff had accepted the presence of other ‘X’ device marks in the market. This would dilute the plaintiff's unqualified stand that they were entitled to monopolise on the device mark ‘X’ with the stylization that it had adopted. There was no palpable difference between the plaintiff's ‘X’ mark and that used by Soccer International. A comparison of the two marks is shown as under:
| Plaintiff’s X mark | X mark of Soccer International | ||
|---|---|---|---|
One of the arms of ‘X’ in the Soccer International’s mark/device had a slightly different take than that of the plaintiff's mark. This comparison also shows that it would be impossible to even document the various minor variations which could occur in the stylization of the letter 'X' considering it consists of two simple lines intersecting each other.
To substantiate the above, a comparative table is provided under to show the plaintiff's and the defendants' 'X' marks, the one used by Soccer International and the ones which are available on Amazon listings as shown by the defendants for ‘X-STEP’ and ‘PAYNTR-X’.
| Entity | Mark | |
|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | ||
| Defendants | ||||
Soccer International Private Ltd. | ||||
| X-STEP | ||||
| PAYNTR-X | ||||
The plaintiff had clearly stated that it was not claiming monopoly over the use of the letter ‘X’ but only in its stylization. However, difference in stylization of ‘X’ could be various and numerous, and considering that neither of these companies including the plaintiff and the defendants were using the 'X' device mark as an isolated identification for their products, but instead selling goods under the principal brand names, the confusion would not arise.
The plaintiff would have a case in the event somebody had exactly copied its ‘X’ mark in order that it is identical and there was evidence on the record to show that it sought to counterfeit the plaintiff's products, or otherwise were using a principal trademark which was similar to that of the plaintiff's principal trademark being ‘RELAXO’ or ‘SPARX’.
It is an admitted position that the defendants' application in Class 25 was filed a year earlier in 2011 and that of the plaintiff in 2012. The launch by the defendants of their products in 2013 does not per se offer evidence of the fact that there was dishonest adoption by them. ‘HRX’ and ‘HRX BY HRITIK ROSHAN’ was a distinctive mark and brand developed by the defendants with a unique identity, unique celebrity endorsement, and a full-storyboard based upon their inspiration from the Actor Hritik Roshan. It is stated in their written statement that the respondent’s mark has been created from the first letters of the name ‘HRITHIK’ ‘ROSHAN’ along with the word ‘EXTREME’.
Having spent substantially on developing their brand to be distinctive, it cannot be said that the defendants have dishonestly adopted the plaintiff's ‘X’ device mark, since it would not be of any substantial purpose. It would have been a different situation if both the plaintiff and the defendants were using the ‘X’ device marks purely and simply on their shoes and the packaging without their principal brand names or otherwise listing them as such on online sites without the principal brand names, which is not the case herein. Besides the defendants having been in the market now since 2013 i.e. more than a decade, the balance of convenience also leans in their favour.
Though it may strictly not apply on the facts of this case, but the principle of “added matter” as relied on in Corn Products (supra) by the Supreme Court, and Intex Technologies (supra) by this Court may be instructive.
Relevant portions of Corn Products (supra) are extracted as under:
15.Now it is a well recognised principle, that has to be taken into account in considering the possibility of confusion arising between any two trademarks, that, where those two marks contain a common element which is also contained in a number of other marks in use in the same market such a common occurrence in the market tends to cause purchasers to pay more attention to the other features of the respective marks and to distinguish between them by those features. This principle clearly requires that the marks comprising the common element shall be in fairly extensive use and, as I have mentioned, in use in the market in which the marks under consideration are being or will be used.
(emphasis supplied)
Relevant portions of Intex Technologies (supra) are extracted as under:
31.Insofar as the issue of added matter is concerned, there is no doubt that if the added matter is so prominent as to completely distinguish one product from the other, then there would be no case for confusion whether it be confusion proper or, initial confusion or reverse confusion. In the present case, we find that the mark “Intex” is as prominent, if not more, than the mark “AQUA” in the appellant's product packaging. This is also evident from the images of the packaging employed by the parties as given below:
(emphasis supplied)
Considering that the issue relates to the ‘X’ device marks used respectively by the parties with their respective stylisations, the “added matter”, if at all, could be taken to be the main brands viz. ‘SPARX’ and ‘HRX’ respectively under which they sell their products.
In view of the above discussion, this application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC is dismissed. It is made clear that these observations are prima facie at this stage since the trial is yet to commence.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
CS(COMM) 917/2018
List before the Joint Registrar on 16th July, 2024 for further proceedings.
Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.