Bombay High Court: In the present case, applicant sought an injunction restraining defendants from infringing applicant’s registered trade marks, i.e., the ‘MOCHI’ marks using the impugned mark ‘DESIMOCHI’ and/or any other marks identical or deceptively similar to the registered mark of applicant. Further, relief was sought to refrain defendants from passing off defendants’ goods/services as those of applicant’s and for ancillary reliefs.
A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., granted temporary order and injunction, restraining defendants, from in any manner whatsoever infringing applicant’s registered trade marks i.e., the ‘MOCHI’ marks using the impugned marks and/or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the said registered marks of applicant. The Court further declared that the registered mark of applicant ‘MOCHI’ was a well-known mark under Section of the (‘the 1999 Act’).
Background
Applicant was a public limited company incorporated under the and was one of the largest Indian footwear and accessories specialty retailers and were among the aspirational Indian brands in the footwear categories. Applicant was in the business of, trading, marketing, distribution, sale, import, of shoes, footwear, boots, sandals, slippers, socks, non-slipping devices for boots and shoes, soles for footwear, belts (clothing), heels and heel protectors for shoes, tips for footwear, welts for footwear, also pocket wallets, key cases, imitation leather, handbags, bags, attaché bags, briefcases, pouches of leather, leather unworked or semi-worked and accessories.
Applicant was the owner and registered user of the ‘MOCHI’ marks and had been in extensive use of the same since 1977, as a result of which, the ‘MOCHI’ marks had become well-known among members of the public in India and globally as markers/identifiers exclusively associated with applicant’s business and brand. Applicant stated that around December 2016, it began operation of a website under the domain name “ , incorporating ‘MOCHI’ mark/brand as an essential and central feature. Applicant’s goods and services under ‘MOCHI’ marks were advertised, promoted, and sold through Flipkart, Amazon, Myntra, Tata CLiQ, Nykaa Fashion, Ajio, etc. Applicant had secured registration of the word mark ‘MOCHI’ in classes 18, 25, and 35, among other ‘MOCHI’ marks in the same classes.
Applicant, around August 2022, come to know about the existence of a website, “ (‘impugned website’) that sold footwear and applicant stated that defendants were not only using the impugned website to sell their goods but were also selling footwear using the impugned mark, ‘DESIMOCHI’. The impugned marks were ex-facie identical and/or deceptively similar to applicant’s ‘MOCHI’ marks and were being used in relation to goods and services, identical with and/or similar to those of applicant.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that applicant established that it had secured registration of the ‘MOCHI’ word marks in Classes 18, 25, and 35 with a user claim since 1977. The Court stated that prima facie, applicant had established there had been open, continuous, and extensive use of the said ‘MOCHI’ mark which had become well-known among members of the public in India and globally as markers/identifiers exclusively associated with applicant’s business and brand.
The Court rejected Defendant 1’s contention that its website was a shoe aggregator platform selling various brands and that Defendant 2 had acquired the domain name ‘DESIMOCHI’ in 2017 and permitted Defendant 1 to use the domain ‘DESIMOCHI’. The Court opined that dishonesty in adoption was to be presumed once defendant was deemed to have notice of applicant’s mark by virtue of the same being on the register and was under an obligation to undertake a search of public domain registries/sources.
The Court relied on Bal Pharma Ltd. v. Centaur Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., and Merck KgaA v. Natco Pharma Ltd., , and opined that defendants’ use of their impugned mark DESIMOCHI’ was clearly after applicant’s use of its registered mark ‘MOCHI which was since inception from 1977.
The Court stated that defendants’ contention that applicant’s registration was conditional was also misconceived as applicant’s subsequent registrations of the mark ‘MOCHI’ were without any condition and not derivative of the first application and therefore, would not suffer the same condition as imposed initially presuming that the condition was in any manner disclaimer of the word ‘MOCHI. The Court opined that the two registrations which were conditional were for device marks and the condition mentioned therein i.e., “‘Registration of this trade mark shall give no right to the exclusive use of the letter ‘M’ and other descriptive matter” was with respect to and there was no disclaimer in so far as use of the word ‘MOCHI’ was concerned.
The Court opined that rival marks were required to be considered as a whole, including the disclaimed matters while deciding the question of actionable similarity/infringement. Every trade mark registration was separate and independent and a disclaimer in one registration could not be read or imported into another.
The Court agreed with applicant’s contention that third party application and/or their status had no bearing on the present case and merely, because third party application was refused registration for the mark ‘MOCHI’, it did not in any manner effect the registrations of applicant of their mark ‘MOCHI’ word marks in Classes 18, 25, and 35 with user claim since 1977, amongst other variants of the ‘MOCHI’ marks.
The Court opined that there was presumption of distinctiveness once applicants’ mark ‘MOCHI’ had been registered. The Court stated that defendant had itself applied for registration of the mark ‘DESIMOCHI’ which contained the entirety of applicant’s mark ‘MOCHI’ and would therefore be estopped from contending that applicant’s mark was generic, descriptive, or common to the trade.
The Court opined that applicant held valid and enforceable rights to the mark ‘MOCHI’, including exclusive rights to prevent others from using the same or confusingly similar marks in relation to footwear. Further, even pre-fixing ‘MOCHI’ with ‘DESI’ triggered an association and business connection with applicant’s mark and was likely to be interpreted by an ordinary member of the public and those also in trade to mean that the goods were associated with applicant’s brand ‘MOCHI’ which was one of the largest and most reputed brands in the footwear industry. Thus, the Court opined that prima facie, ‘DESIMOCHI’ would suggest that it was the Indian brand of applicant’s mark ‘MOCHI’.
The Court stated that WIPO’s decision dated 23-01-2024 stating that applicant had not been able to establish that there was bad faith on the part of defendants in adopting their domain name which contained the word ‘MOCHI’ was incorrect. The Court stated that the WIPO’s decision failed to consider that if it was found that a deceptively similar mark or domain name which was being used with respect to identical goods and services, then a case for infringement of trade mark was made out because such usage would inevitably lead to confusion. The Court also stated that the existence of bad faith per se was not required to secure an infringement order for a registered trade mark.
The Court thus held that applicant made out a strong prima facie case for grant of injunction for infringement and passing off. The Court stated that the balance of convenience was also in favour of applicant as it had abled to establish that it was a user of the registered mark since 1977, which was open, continuous, and extensive use. Hence, non-grant of injunction against a rank infringer such as defendants would result in applicant being made to suffer irreparable loss and harm. The Court further declared that the registered mark of applicant ‘MOCHI’ was a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the 1999 Act.
Therefore, the Court granted temporary order and injunction, restraining defendants, from in any manner whatsoever infringing applicant’s registered trade marks i.e., the ‘MOCHI’ marks using the impugned marks and/or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the said registered marks of applicant.
[Metro Brands Ltd. v. Nice Shoes LLP, Interim Application (L) No. 14867 of 2024, decided on 18-11-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant/Plaintiff: Rashmin Khandekar, Anand Mohan and Alhan Kayser i/b. Avesh Kayser for the Applicant/Plaintiff.
For the Defendants: Raj Dani, i/b. Jyoti Pandey for the Defendants.
Buy Trade Marks Act, 1999
The post appeared first on .