Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by Evergreen Sweet House (plaintiff) seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the trademarks of the plaintiff and passing off their business as that of the plaintiff and other ancillary reliefs. Amit Bansal, J., restrained defendant 1 from using “JV Evergreen Sweets & Treats” or any other mark, trade dress, packaging/marketing material which bears the mark “Evergreen” or any other mark which is identical or deceptively like the mark “Evergreen”, in any manner whatsoever, till the final adjudication of the suit.
The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm engaged in the business of preparing and selling Indian sweets and namkeens since 30-09-1963. The mark “Evergreen” was adopted by the plaintiff in the year 1963 and the plaintiff has been using the same ever since in connection with its business, i.e., the sale of Indian sweets and namkeens. The plaintiff also has a registered domain name, , which has been in use since 2019. The plaintiff has obtained registration for the device mark bearing the word “Evergreen” with effect from 26-08-1998 claiming use from 1963 in class 30. The aforesaid registration is valid and subsisting. The registered mark of the plaintiff features a unique trade dress including colour scheme, get up and layout.
The plaintiff received an email dated 13-05-2024 wherein one of its customers complained to the plaintiff that there is another shop under the name and style “JV Evergreen Sweets & Treats” operating in Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi, which is also selling products like that of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also came to know that the defendant 1 is operating on food delivery platforms like Zomato (defendant 2) and Swiggy (defendant 3) under the impugned mark and selling products identical to that of the plaintiff, which is causing confusion amongst the customers of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist notice to the defendant 1 on 15-05-2024 calling upon defendant 1 to refrain from using the word ‘Evergreen’. Defendant 1 replied to the aforesaid cease-and-desist notice on 17-05-2024 stating that the mark adopted by the defendant 1 is different from that of the plaintiff and the word ‘Evergreen’ is a generic name, which cannot be monopolised by anyone. Thus, the present suit was filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction on the basis of infringement and passing off along with other ancillary reliefs.
The Court noted that prima facie, the plaintiff has established a case of passing off as it cannot be denied that the most distinctive and prominent part of the name of the plaintiff’s mark is ‘Evergreen’. The comparison of the images of both names makes it abundantly clear that defendant 1 has copied the most distinctive part of the plaintiff’s mark, which is ‘Evergreen’. In the case of the defendant 1, the word ‘Evergreen’ has the prefix “JV” and the suffix “Sweets and Treats”, whereas in the plaintiff’s case, the word ‘Evergreen’ is followed by the word “Sweet House”. Thus, the differences are inconsequential as the most prominent part of the mark of the plaintiff’s mark is ‘Evergreen’. Additionally, both the plaintiff and the defendant 1 prominently use the colour green in their banners as well as logos. So, there is a very real likelihood of the customers being misled into believing that the outlet being operated by defendant 1 has some association with the plaintiff.
The Court stated that defendant 1 has failed to give any plausible reason for adopting an identical name as that of the plaintiff. Therefore, the adoption of the mark ‘Evergreen’ by defendant 1 was not bona fide and amounts to misrepresentation. The Court also remarked that in the present times, online delivery of food products has become the norm and food delivery apps like Zomato (defendant 2) and Swiggy (defendant 3) have become extremely popular. Both the plaintiff and defendant 1 are listed on the food delivery applications such as Swiggy and Zomato. If any unsuspecting consumer is to search for ‘Evergreen’ on these platforms, both the outlets of the plaintiff and the defendant 1 would show up. Therefore, in my prima facie view, there is a likelihood of confusion and deception among the members of the public.
The Court concluded that a prima facie case of passing off is made out on behalf of the plaintiff. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant 1 because the plaintiff has been in business for more than sixty years whereas the defendant 1 has merely started about three years back and irreparable harm and injury would be caused not only to the plaintiff but also to the public at large if the defendant 1 continues to use the infringing mark.
The Court granted injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and directed defendant 1 to take down all its listings bearing the mark “Evergreen” on defendants 2 and 3’s platforms namely, Zomato and Swiggy. If defendant 1 fails to comply with the aforesaid directions within two weeks, then defendant 2 and defendant 3 are directed to delist/block the use of the impugned mark on their respective platforms.
[Evergreen Sweet House v JV Evergreen Sweets and Treats, CS(COMM) 430/2024, decided on 23-12-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Sidhant Kumar, Mr. Rakshit Dhingra, Ms. Manyaa Chandok and Mr. Om Batra, Advocates for plaintiff
Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Advocate with Ms. Shraddha Bhargava, Mr. Rohit Saraswat, Ms. Sharan Mehta, Ms. Rishika Jain and Ms. Princey Sharma, Advocates for D-1 Mr. Abhay Pratap Singh and Ms. Mitali U., Advs. for D-3 Mr. Varun Pathak, Adv. for D-4
The post appeared first on .