Hyderabad Food Retail Chain BAJAJ Supermart Restrained By Bombay High Court From Infringing And Passing-Off Well-Known Trade Mark BAJAJ
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
16 Feb 2021 6:13 AM GMT
In the matter of Bajaj Electricals Ltd v Urban Foodmart India Pvt Ltd & Ors, being COMIP (L) No. 2517 of 2021, Learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S Patel passed an interim order dated 5th February 2021, restraining the Defendants from using the mark 'BAJAJ SUPERMART' in relation to food retail chain thereby committing trademark infringement and passing off of Plaintiff's well-known mark BAJAJ. The Defendants, vide the said order, were directed to remove all signage, use of marks on shopping bags, cartons, packing material, etc. within a period of three weeks.
Brief facts are that Plaintiff's has been using its mark BAJAJ openly, continuous and extensively since the year 1961. Plaintiff's said mark has achieved the status of a well-known mark and the same has been recorded and recognized by Trade Mark Registry and various courts. The Defendant, on the other hand, operated retail convenience stores/food retail chain in Hyderabad by the name of BAJAJ SUPERMART.
Defendant had filed trademark applications for the device mark/logo containing the words 'Bajaj Supermarket' in class 35. The same appeared to be deceptively similar to Plaintiff's mark. Below are the rival marks for reference.
The plaintiff in their Plaint also produced material to show actual confusion which is being caused among the members of public due to Defendant's use of their mark BAJAJ SUPERMART. In addition to this, the incorporation details of Urban Foodmart India describing its services as "dealing in all kinds of goods, materials, and items including but not limited to food and provisions, household goods, groceries, consumer durables, jewellery, home improvement products, footwear, luggage, books and stationery, healthcare and beauty products, electrical and electronic goods, computers and accessories, telecom products, agri input projects, furniture and furnishings, automobile and accessories, financial products and acquiring and running food, service and entertainment centres, amusement parks, restaurants and food courts.." proved the mala fide intention of Defendant to rely on the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's 'BAJAJ' marks and later diversify its business activities to goods and services associated with the Plaintiff's brand.
In view of the aforesaid, Defendants gave an undertaking and were restrained from using any mark which contains the word BAJAJ in any manner whatsoever and the Hon'ble Court granted reliefs to the Plaintiff in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of Plaintiff's Interim Application.
The Plaintiff was represented by Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar (Senior Counsel), Mr. Hiren Kamod, Mr. Rahul Dhote and Mr. Aditya Mahadevia instructed by the law firm Literati Juris.
