That recently an order was passed wherein it was stated that Geographical Location of Parties Does Not, In Any Manner, Avoid the Chances of Confusion between Identical Marks and Names. The summary of the case is as below.

The Plaintiff, JDM Heritage Lawns Heritage Private Limited owns the registered 'SADDA PIND' mark in the hospitality and allied services industry in class 43 since 2015. That the Plaintiff came across the Defendant's Ankit Chawla Proprietor of Sadda Pind Restaurant, who adopted an identical mark 'SADDA PIND RESTAURANT' for identical services at NH-48, Ramchandpura, Rajasthan.

The Plaintiff had issued a notice to the Defendant on 31st May, 2022 and the Defendant in reply to the legal notice claimed that there logo bears no similarity with the specific logo of the Plaintiff as it is using the mark 5 ADDA PIND.

That thereafter the Plaintiff approached the Delhi High Court with a suit for Infringement, Passing Off, Unfair Competition and Misuse of the 'SADDA PIND' name and logo. The Plaintiff seeks injunction by restraining Ankit Chawla Proprietor of Sadda Pind Restaurant, for adopting an identical mark 'SADDA PIND RESTAURANT' for identical services at NH-48, Ramchandpura, Rajasthan.

The court rejected the claim of the defendant's as made in the reply to legal notice and said the defendant is using 'SADD PIND' mark, which is an identical mark, name, logo and device as that of the Plaintiff. "Even the letter 5 is in a manner so as to appear close to `S' so that `5adda' is read as `Sadda'.

The court was of the opinion that though the plaintiff may be having its property in Amritsar, its registered office is in Delhi and there "is a reasonable scope of expansion" for the Plaintiff as contemplated in the 2-judge bench judgement of the Supreme Court in Laxmikant V Patel vs. Chetanbhat Shah and Anr., (2002).

"It is a fact of which judicial notice can be taken that presently, bookings through online portals have become the norm and the geographical location of parties does not, in any manner, avoid the chances of confusion between identical marks and names. The listing of the Plaintiff and the Defendant using an identical mark and name as also logo is bound to create deception in the minds of the customers that the Defendant's property is in some manner associated or a part of the Plaintiff,"

Accordingly, the Defendant shall stand restrained from using the mark & name 'SADDA PIND' at NH-48, Ramchandpura, Rajasthan including the device and/or any identical or deceptively similar name as that of the Plaintiff, i.e., 'SADDA PIND' thereof in respect of any resort/restaurant, accommodation, hotel and entertainment venue or in relation to any other allied or cognate services. The injunction granted shall come into effect from 15th November, 2022. No further outlets or properties or resorts etc. shall be opened by the Defendant under the impugned mark and name with immediate effect.

#trademark #infringement #passingoff #geographicallocation # misuse #unfaircompetition # injunction #similarity #confusion #deception #ipr #intellectualpropertyright