Akin To Theft In Police Station: Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction Against Indian Companies Using Japan Patent Office’s Logo

The Delhi High Court has restrained Indian company ‘A2Z Glass and Glazing Co.’ and its two sister concerns from using Japan Patent Office’s mark/logo (or any mark identical or similar thereto) as well as the mark ‘JPO PLATINUM’ in respect of any product or service, with immediate effect.

The judgment came to be passed by Justice Prathiba M. Singh in an application filed by the Japanese governmental agency under Order 39 Rules 1&2 CPC, alleging imitation of its logo by the Defendant-Indian companies for manufacture and sale of tools and kits.

On one hand, JPO claimed to have adopted its logo in the year 2011. On the other, the Defendants were stated to have filed for registration of trade mark ‘JPO PLATINUM’ in Class 6, claiming use since year 2020, which was opposed by the Plaintiff.

After going through the records and hearing the submissions, the Court opined that JPO’s logo constituted ‘original artistic work’, entitled to copyright protection. “…Under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, JPO would have the exclusive rights to use this logo”, the Court said.

Taking note of JPO’s various initiatives in India, it further observed that “…JPO has had recognition and goodwill even within India for the last several years”. It was also recorded that non-filing of any trade mark application by JPO for registration of its mark/logo was fully explicable.

Being of the view that the Defendants had copied JPO’s logo identically, the Court reckoned that their use of JPO’s mark and logo would (i) violate Plaintiff’s goodwill and brand equity (ii) dilute Plaintiff’s logo and mark, and (iii) infringe Plaintiff’s copyright in its logo.

Inasmuch as the JPO – a governmental agency protecting and granting trade mark registrations to IP owners – found itself at the receiving end of infringement and imitation, the Court interestingly remarked that the act of the Defendants was akin to ‘theft being committed in a police station’.

Referring to Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah & Ors., MANU/SC/0763/2001, it added that “…in cases relating to trade mark violations and passing off, if the evidence establishes a prima facie case, even at the ex-parte stage, injunction ought to be granted.”

Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Udita M. Patro, Ms. Sampurnaa Sanyal and Ms. Nimrat Singh, Advocates appeared for Plaintiff.

Case Title: Japan Patent Office v. Ms. A2Z Glass and Glazing Co. & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 980

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment