The Trademarks Act of 1999 protects trademarks in India. The Act specifies the rules for trademark registration as well as infringement sanctions. In India, trademark infringement is a punishable offence, which means the offender could face both criminal and civil charges.
In the event that a civil suit is launched for trademark infringement, the court may grant the following remedies: Temporary injunction, Permanent injunction, Damages, Account of profits (damages equivalent to the profits earned from the infringement) , Destruction of all those goods bearing the unauthorized trademark , Cost of legal proceedings.
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE:- TATA SIA AIRLINES LIMITED Vs VISTARA BUILDTECH LLP & ANR.
The plaintiff (TATA SIA AIRLINES LIMITED VS VISTARA BUILDTECH LLP & ANR ) , a Widely known collaboration between Tata Sons Pvt Ltd and Singapore Airlines Ltd that operates in the commercial aviation business under the mark VISTARA, was harmed by the defendants’ (VISTARA BUILDTECH LLP & ANR ) use of the mark VISTARA as part of the impugned marks.
The plaintiff is aggrieved by the use, by the defendants, of the mark VISTARA as part of the impugned marks. The impugned marks are stated to be used by the defendants in connection with commercial properties which are being developed by the defendants.
The Airlines approached the court through the prevailing suit, seeking an injunction against the defendants from using the impugned marks in any way, as the marks infringe the plaintiff’s registered trademarks and are likely to lead an unsuspecting consumer to believe that the defendants’ activities have some association with the plaintiff.
THE COURT FURTHER PROCEEDED AS:-
That the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking interlocutory injunctive reliefs. The plaintiff has made out a clear prima facie case of infringement and passing off in its favour and against the defendants. The defendants are yet to commence operations. The assertions in the plaint reveal that the defendant, as a partnership firm, has itself come into existence only in 2022.
As such, the defendants cannot, prima facie, plead longevity of user as a defence against grant of injunction. The plaint also points out that plaintiff is declared as a well-known mark by judgment dated 5th August 2019 passed by this Court in CS (Comm.) 156 of 2019. As the plaintiff would also be entitled to benefit of Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
In such circumstances, the judgments of the Supreme Court in Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah1 and Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd v. Sudhir Bhatia2 , require the Court to injunct the defendants from continuing with its infringing activities.
The Court determined that a prima facie case of infringement exists because the plaintiff owns various registrations for the word mark VISTARA.
‘Vistara’ is a coined word with no known meaning or etymological significance, and the plaintiff airlines has been using it since 2015 which is a long time , according to the single-judge bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar, while the defendant only came into existence in 2020 and has yet to start building operations under the infringing marks. As a result, the plaintiff has an advantage over the defendants in terms of priority of use, the Court decided.
The airline was offended by the defendants’ use of the mark in connection with the commercial premises they were developing. On January 2, 2023, they sent the defendants a cease-and-desist letter. On January 19, 2023, a reminder was sent after that. However, neither of the notices received a response.
They filed a petition with the High Court, seeking an order to prevent the defendants from using the contested marks in any way because they would mislead an unwary consumer into thinking that the defendants’ actions are somehow connected to the airline.
The Delhi High Court has allowed the plea of Vistara Airlines to put an interim stay on use of ‘VISTARA’ mark by the Construction Company, Vistara Buildtech.
Recent Comments