Relief To 'Prestige', Delhi High Court Restrains Manufacturers From Infringing Its Pressure Cookers Design
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained two manufacturers from selling or advertising “Paristone” pressure cookers bearing a design which is prima facie identical and infringes that of “Prestige” Svachh range of pressure cookers. Justice C Hari Shankar also restrained the manufacturers from using the trade dress “Paristone” for its mark which is almost identical to the...
The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained two manufacturers from selling or advertising “Paristone” pressure cookers bearing a design which is prima facie identical and infringes that of “Prestige” Svachh range of pressure cookers.
Justice C Hari Shankar also restrained the manufacturers from using the trade dress “Paristone” for its mark which is almost identical to the trade dress used by Prestige.
“The defendants would not, however, be restrained, for the present, from using the mark PARISTONE in any other trade dress, which is not similar to the trade dress of the petitioner’s PRESTIGE mark, on pressure cookers which do not imitate or infringe the registered design of the plaintiff’s Svachh range of pressure cookers,” the court said.
Justice Shankar was dealing with a suit filed by TTK Prestige Limited alleging design piracy and trademark infringement of its Svachh line of pressure cookers by the manufacturers who were selling their pressure cookers under the name “PARISTONE”.
The court observed that the trade dress adopted by the defendant manufacturers is almost identical to the “Prestige” and trade dress of the plaintiff, with identically printed white letters in a similar font on an identical pink background and a black swirl or line below it.
“There are, clearly, between the two, no such distinguishing features – barring the name itself – as would impress itself on the mind of a consumer of average intelligence and, more importantly, imperfect recollection, so as to enable him to distinguish the former from the latter, when seen at different points of time,” the court said.
It added that a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, who may recollect the visual impression of the mark, is likely to confuse one product with the other.
“In any event, as the defendants have clearly copied the trade dress of the plaintiff insofar the visual appearance on its mark is concerned, a case of passing off is made out,” the court said.
Furthermore, Justice Shankar said that the fact that the defendant manufacturers chose to imitate the manner in which Prestige prints its logo was itself testimony to the goodwill and reputation of the latter, in the perception of the former itself.
“Even otherwise, once the defendants have chosen to copy the manner in which the plaintiff has visualised its mark and also the manner in which the mark is affixed on the pressure cooker, as well as the design of the pressure cooker itself, it can hardly lie in the mouth of the defendants to question the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff,” the court said.
Title: TTK PRESTIGE LTD v. ARJUN RAM & ANR.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1032