'Higher Standards Of Probity Expected From IPR Lawyers': Delhi High Court Restrains Kolkata Law Firm From Using Identical Logo

The Delhi High Court has said that there is a duty cast upon the legal professionals, particularly Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) lawyers, to ensure that they do not imitate or adopt a name or logo already used by others offering similar services."This Court is of the opinion that higher standards of probity would be expected, from lawyers and legal professionals especially IPR lawyers, inasmuch as there is a duty cast upon them to ensure that they do not imitate or adopt a name or logo which is already in existence or in use by another person or entity, offering similar services," Justice Pratibha M Singh said. The court made the observations in its interim order in a suit filed by a Delhi-based IP lawyer Sujata Chaudhri, the proprietor and founder of a IP law firm Sujata Chaudhri IP Attorneys. Chaudhri has sued Swarupa Ghosh, a Kolkata-based lawyer, for adopting an almost identical logo for her chamber.Justice Singh in the order said Chaudhri has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction and the balance of convenience lies in her favour. "Moreover, irreparable injury would be caused to the Plaintiff if the interim injunction is not granted. Thus, the Defendant ought not to be permitted to use its logo, which is almost identical to the Plaintiff's logo," said the court.Accordingly, the court restrained Ghosh from using the impugned SG logo with effect from January 1, 2023. "If the Defendant wishes to adopt the alternative logo to amicably resolve the issue, she is permitted to move an application before this Court," Justice Singh said, while listing the matter for hearing on January 13. Advocate Dushyant K Mahant, appearing for Chaudhri, had earlier submitted before the court that she adopted the SC device mark in 2014, whereas the defendant started practice only in 2017.The court was told that the plaintiff had attempted to resolve the matter through pre-litigation mediation. "However, no amicable settlement could be arrived at," Mahant said.On the other hand, Advocate Rajeshwari H., appearing for Ghosh, submitted that her client was a bona fide adopter of the SG logo which was based on the Edwardian Script ITC font. It was argued that the said font is an openly available public domain font and thus, there cannot be any monopoly on it.Justice Singh said a comparison of the logos shows that they are almost identical. It is almost impossible to decipher the differences between the two, observed the court.The court also noted that Chaudhri's logo is a part of the registered mark in class 45 wherein the stylised device mark is clearly visible. The mark forms an inalienable part of the registration and under such circumstances, the use of an almost identical logo in respect of identical services would be violative of Chaudhri's statutory and common law rights, it added."The mere fact that the font may be an openly available font does not mean that the same very font has to be used by the Defendant, from amongst the thousands of font options that are available. The Plaintiff has, bonafidely attempted amicable resolution prior to the filing of the present suit which has also not borne any result. Clearly, therefore, the intervention of the Court would be needed in these facts," the court said.Meanwhile, the court has issued summons to the defendant in the suit."A written statement to the plaint shall be positively filed within 30 days. Along with the written statement, the Defendant shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the Plaintiff, without which the written statement shall not be taken on record," it said.Title: SUJATA CHAUDHRI v. SWARUPA GHOSHCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 1049Click Here To Read Order

'Higher Standards Of Probity Expected From IPR Lawyers': Delhi High Court Restrains Kolkata Law Firm From Using Identical Logo

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags