Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J.* held that prima facie, a case of infringement was made out against the defendants, by use of the mark ‘JINDAL' in respect of PVC pipes, for which the plaintiff had registration since 2006, whereas the Defendant 1 had no registration in its favour of the mark ‘JINDAL' for PVC pipes.
Background
The plaintiff had registrations for the word mark ‘JINDAL ', for steel tubular poles, cast iron pipes, galvanized iron pipes and PVC pipes. The plaintiff also had registration in device mark
The plaintiff was aggrieved by the fact that, though Defendant 1 had no registration for the mark ‘JINDAL' in respect of PVC pipes and was the holder of a registration for the mark ‘J PLEX' for such pipes since 2020, Defendant 1 had now started using the mark ‘JINDAL' for PVC pipes. The plaintiff asserted prior user in mark ‘JINDAL' for PVC pipes, vis-a-vis Defendant 1. The plaintiff also had registration for the word mark ‘JINDAL' for PVC pipes since 2006.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the registration of the ‘JINDAL' device mark, held by Defendant 1, did not cover PVC pipes and the plaintiff, on the other hand, held a registration of the work mark ‘JINDAL' for PVC pipes since 2006. The Court stated that at this prima facie stage, it had no reason not to believe that Defendant 1 was, till recently, using its registered mark ‘J PLEX' for PVC pipes and had only recently started using the mark ‘JINDAL' on such pipes.
The Court noted that on the website of Defendant 1, even as on date, the recital to be found was that ‘JINDAL' was the mother brand of Defendant 1, which catered to its entire range of sanitaryware and plumbing products whereas ‘J PLEX' was another of Defendant 1's sub-brands, which catered to its pipes and fittings range of products. The Court opined that by applying the principle of balance of convenience at this stage, Defendant 1 would not be subjected to any serious prejudice if it was restrained from using ‘JINDAL' on its PVC pipes, as it was already using the mark ‘J PLEX', which was registered in Defendant 1's favour for PVC pipes.
Thus, the Court held that prima facie, a case of infringement was made out against the defendants, by use of the mark ‘JINDAL' in respect of PVC pipes, for which the plaintiff had registration since 2006, whereas the Defendant 1 had no registration in its favour of the mark ‘JINDAL' for PVC pipes. The Court directed that till the next date of hearing, the defendants were restrained from using the marks
The matter would next be listed on 1-8-2023.
[Jindal Industries (P) Ltd. v. Jindal Sanitaryware (P) Ltd., CS (COMM) 251 of 2023, Order dated 9-5-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate; Sarad Kumar Sunny, Rohan Dua, Keshav Mann, Ananya, Advocates
For the Defendants: Abhishek Grover, Rakesh Tiwari, Advocates
The post appeared first on .