CASE NAME: HATSUN AGRO PRODUCT LTD. V. PRAVEEN KUMAR, JUNE 2024 MADRAS HIGH COURT [Civil Suit (Comm.Div.)No.147 of 2023]
The plaintiff filed a suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant and its servants, agents, legal representatives, distributors, or any one climbing through it from, in any manner, infringing the plaintiff’s well-known registered trademark “AROKYA” under the Trademarks Act, 1999, by using the trademark “AROGYA DHAN” (the defendant’s trademark) or any other deceptively similar mark in any manner. It completely violates the nature of the trademark, i.e., distinctive character (which means that the trademark should be identical) of the product, and it creates confusion among the people and also affects its reputation and goodwill for their products over the years under the said distinctive characters. The plaintiff also obtained multiple registrations for its trademark “AROKYA” under various classes, particularly classes 29, 30, 31, and 32 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. The defendant’s trademark “AROGYA DHAN ” created confusion among the consumers, and some people believed that it is a HATSUN AGRO PRODUCT.
Court’s Decision:
Therefore, the court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff as it was found to be a valid claim under the violation of “distinctive characters” in the Trademark Act, 1999, and ordered the defendants to cease using the infringing mark, surrender all products with the offending labels, and pay RS. 3,00,000 as damages. The court also dismissed all related pending applications, affirming the plaintiff’s right to safeguard its trademark and reputation against the defendant’s unauthorised and prejudicial use.
AUTHOR:
Thirisha S, 4th-year student of B.A., LL.B. (Hons.) from School Of Excellence in Law.