The High Court of Delhi delivered a judgment on August 5, 2024, in the case of M/S. Ganesh Gouri Industries and others versus R. C. Plasto Tanks and Pipes Pvt. Ltd. The appellants, Ganesh Gouri, challenged an order from the Commercial Court that granted an injunction against them, preventing the use of certain labels and color schemes that allegedly infringed on Plasto's trademarks.

Ganesh Gouri, a partnership firm, manufactures plastic tanks, water tanks, pipes, and fittings, using the trademarks "AQUA PLAST" and "GAURI AQUA PLAST." Plasto, part of the Plasto Group, adopted the trademark "PLASTO" in 1981 and filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction against Ganesh Gouri for using a similar label/device/color scheme.

The Commercial Court granted an ex-parte injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner to seize goods from Ganesh Gouri. A previous suit between the parties was settled with a compromise decree in 2018, allowing Ganesh Gouri to use "AQUA PLAST" but not "PLASTO" or similar taglines.

The appellants argued that the present suit was an act of forum shopping, as Plasto had failed to secure an injunction in the Nagpur suit. They also contended that the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction since Plasto's sales within the court's territorial limits were minimal.

The High Court disagreed with Ganesh Gouri's contentions, stating that a fresh cause of action allows for a new suit, and the Nagpur suit was based on different marks and had been settled. The Court also found that Plasto had a virtual and physical business presence within the Commercial Court's jurisdiction, supporting its territorial jurisdiction.

Regarding the deceptive similarity of the trademarks, the Court held that the Commercial Court erred in finding Ganesh Gouri's marks to be deceptively similar to Plasto's. The Court emphasized that the overall impression of the marks should be considered, and the presence of the word "PLAST" alone, which is a derivative of "plastic," does not constitute infringement. The Court also noted that the background color, sky blue, is commonly associated with water and cannot be monopolized.

The High Court set aside the Commercial Court's order, concluding that the appellants' marks were distinctive and did not infringe on Plasto's trademarks. The Court clarified that its observations were prima facie and for the purpose of deciding the appeal against the injunction order.

Case Citation: Ganesh Gouri Vs R.C.Plasto -DB:05.08.2024 : FAO (COMM) 54/2022: 2024: DHC:5788-DB: Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru and Amit Mahajan. H.J.

Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539