The Patiala House Courts, New Delhi granted an ex-part ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff/Polo Ralph Lauren and against the defendant. The case is titled as “the Polo/Lauren Company L.P 650, Madison Avenue,New York, N.Y. 10022, USA Through Its Constituted Attorney Meena Bansal, R/o 96, Sukhdev Vihar, Mathura Road, New Delhi110025 v. Chirag Ashwinbhai Parekh Ashwanila, Devi Bhuvan, Victoria Park Road, Bhavnagar, Gujarat364002.”
The order was passed on 20th July by Justice Sanjiv Jain.
Facts of the Case
The present suit was filed by the Polo/Lauren Company L.P., U.S.A. under section 134 and 135 of Trademarks Act, 1999, and Section 55 of Copyright Act, 1957 for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, his agents, representatives etc. from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising or by any other mode or manner dealing or using the trademarks/labels LOS POLISTAS with or without DEVICE OF POLO PLAYER and EL POLISTA with or without DEVICE OF POLO PLAYER and/or any other word/mark/label which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark POLO with or without device, POLO BY RALPH LAUREN, POLO RALPH LAUREN, POLO DENIM, etc. in relation to their impugned goods and business of manufacture, distribution and sale of apparel and clothing, clothing accessories, jackets, hats, leather goods, shoes, furs etc.
Also, application under section 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC and Section 151 CPC was filed for ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
It was alleged that defendant is also engaged in the identical business of manufacture, distribution and sale of apparel and clothing etc. He has adopted the trademark/label Los Politas and EL Polista with device of Polo Player.
Also, that the trademark/label adopted by the defendant in relation to its goods and business are identical with and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark/label in each and every respect including phonetically, visually, structurally, in its basic idea and in its essential features.
Contentions of the Plaintiff
The Plaintiff submitted that it is engaged in the business of manufacture, distribution and sale of a wide range of apparels and clothing since 1967. Also, that it has been using the formative POLO marks word per se and in stylized manner in conjunction with other marks/words and device of polo player in relation to its goods and business. And, he word/mark POLO is the most essential feature of the plaintiff's trading style/trade name.
Also, that it has the exclusive rights to deal with the said trademark/label/tradename in relation to its goods and business. It has also launched websites and online stores under the domain name www.polo.com and www.ralphlauren.com. It has also obtained various trademarks registration pertaining to its trademark/label in the world including India.
It was submitted that recently, Aditya Birla Fashions and Retail ltd has become licensee of the plaintiff in India. Its trademark/tradename is well known within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (zg) of the Act in the list of well-known trademarks .
The High Court’s judgement in case titled as “The Polo/Lauren Company L.P v/s Rohit S. Bajaj” was cited and it was contended that in the judgement- the court declared the plaintiff's registered trademark POLO/RALPH LAUREN/POLO PLAYER DEVICE as well-known trademark.
It was alleged that defendant is also engaged in the identical business of manufacture, distribution and sale of apparel and clothing etc. He has adopted the trademark/label Los Politas and EL Polista with device of Polo Player.
Also, that the trademark/label adopted by the defendant in relation to its goods and business are identical with and deceptively similar to the plaintiff's said trademark/label in each and every respect including phonetically, visually, structurally, in its basic idea and in its essential features.
It was alleged that defendant was aware of the plaintiff's rights, goodwill and reputation at the time of his impugned adoption and soliciting networking. It was alleged that recently, in the second week of June, 2020, the plaintiff came across two impugned trademarks registrations of the defendant, for the impugned mark EL POLISTA WITH DEVICE OF POLO PLAYER ,which were also filed on proposed user basis. It was alleged that the impugned registrations are not valid and have been fraudulently obtained behind the back of the plaintiff for which the plaintiff has filed petitions before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board for the cancellation of the same.
The decision of the Court
The Court observed that defendant had earlier adopted the identical/deceptively similar mark with the device of Polo player and on the suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant was restrained from using or dealing in the then impugned trademark/label 'CPL' with device of polo player and/or any other word/mark/label which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to plaintiff's trademark 'POLO' with or without device in relation to the impugned goods and business and sale of apparel, clothing for men, women and children, clothing accessories etc and other allied or related products.
The Court also observed that the defendant had filed the applications for impugned Trade mark/label LOS POLISTAS with the device of Polo player on 10.01.2020 on proposed user basis, against which the plaintiff filed oppositions vide dated 19.03.2020 which are pending disposal.
The Court recorded while citing case of Metro Playing Card Co v/s Wazir Chand Kapoor, 1982PTC221 that mere acceptance of an application for registration of a trademark or its advertisement confers no right on the appellant. The Court recorded that in the present case, the defendant was allegedly aware of the plaintiff rights, goodwill, reputation, benefits and users etc. in the plaintiff's said trademark at the time of its impugned adoption and use of trademark.
The Court ultimately granted ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the /respondent/ his agents, representatives, distributors, stockists and all others acting for or on his behalf .
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
