At the beginning of this year, Mittal Electronics had filed a case against Sujata Electronics (defendant no. 1), its manufactures (defendants no. 2 & 4), and its dealers (defendant no. 3) to stop them from using the mark ‘SUJATA’ or ‘STAR SUJATA’.
It happened after a repairman employed by the plaintiff went to fix a geyser; he discovered that the appliance was of another ‘SUJATA’. An application was filed for violation of the plaintiff’s ‘statutory right by way of the registration of the trademark but (and) also amounted to passing off the goods of the defendants as that of the plaintiff besides seeking cancellation of the domain name, declaring the plaintiff's trademark’.
Following the discovery, under the permanent and interim injunction filed by Mittal Enterprises, it demanded both to be declared ‘well-known’ and be given reparations for damages. For a span of six months, the defendants suffered a huge loss due to an imposed rest on its operations. But after the court got to know about the withholding of information on the part of Mittal Enterprises, it modified its injunction on September 9.
According to the recent change, the defendants have been allowed to ‘manufacture 3 specific products i.e. “water filters, water purifiers, and RO systems” bearing the mark ‘SUJATA’ while keeping the terms of injunction intact against the use of the trademark on any other products. The court also directed for returning the goods seized by the local commissioners, back to the defendants’.
The modification was brought about when it came to light that defendant 1, Sujata Electronics, held a trademark under class 11 for water filters, RO, and water purifiers since 2012. In 2014, the plaintiff tried to register with the same name under class 11 goods, and the defendant, Rajesh Bansal opposed it and won the case. Mittal Enterprises argued that they could not have known that the proprietors were in fact the same person and so did not provide this information.
For the court, the interesting fact was that the complaint, filed for geysers, sought an injunction for water purifiers when in reality the plaintiffs manufactured neither of those. Further, it added that their coexistence for a period of time goes on to say that the public is not confused between the brands. It is a relatively huge step since the products fall under the same broad category just serves different purposes. In spite of a substantial loss to the defendants, the plaintiffs were let go only with a slight reprimand.
Picture Source :
