Delhi High Court
Helpage India vs Helpage And Childcare on 30 September, 2005
Author: S K Kaul
Bench: S K Kaul
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
1. The plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction, passing off, infringement of copyright, delivery up and rendition of accounts against the defendant. The plaintiff is a voluntary Non Governmental Organisation (NGO), which was founded in the year 1978 and is registered under the Societies Registration Act. The plaintiff is stated to be one of the founding members of HelpAge International, which is a high profile body having presence in fifty one (51) countries representing the cause of elderly people at the United Nations.
2. The plaintiff is stated to be carrying on projects for helping the elderly persons and has been approved by the National Committee under Section 35(A), 35(C) of the Income Tax Act, whereby donors are entitled to 100 (hundred) per cent tax exemption.
3. The budget of the plaintiff is stated to be to the tune of over Rs. 10 crores.
4. The plaintiff is the owner of the trademark/trade name HELPAGE INDIA and the logo depicting a bent old man with a stick held vertically in his hand. The application for registration is stated to be pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks. This name and logo is stated to have been identified by public with the plaintiff on account of long, extensive and continuous use and has acquired a reputation throughout the world. The name is stated to have been adopted in the year 1978.
5. The plaintiff is aggrieved by the use of the word HELPAGE & logo thereof by the defendant, a voluntary organisation carrying on the same nature of activities under the name HELPAGE & CHILDCARE. The logo is also stated to be similar. It is thus stated that the defendant is trying to create an impression in the minds of the public as if the defendant is an extension of the plaintiff and this is causing confusion in the minds of the public. It is stated that the plaintiff receives considerable donations and the defendant is trying to encash the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff by the use of the trade name and the logo.
6. The defendant entered appearance and filed written statement but thereafter stopped appearing and was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 16th September 2004.
7. The plaintiff in order to establish its case has filed the affidavit of evidence of Shri Anup Khosla, Chief Financial Officer of the plaintiff, who has been authorised through a Board Resolution dated 23rd February 2004 (exhibit P-I). The plaint is stated to have been signed by Major General Dhillon, who was authorised at that stage of time. The booklets and logo of both the plaintiff and that of the defendant have beer proved.
8. In my considered view, in view of the evidence led by the plaintiff and the pleadings filed, it is apparent that the trade name HELPAGE is associated with the work carried on by the plaintiff as also the logo in question. The plaintiff is registered under the Income Tax Act, so that the donations made to the plaintiff are exempted to the extent of 100 (hundred) per cent from tax. The use of the name HELPAGE and logo by the defendant is likely to cause confusion and deception in the minds of the public that defendant is an extension of the plaintiff while it is not actually so.
9. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has also relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in M/s. Helpage India v. M/s. Helpage Garhwal, . That was also a case filed by the plaintiff for infringement of trademark, being trade name HELPAGE and it was found that the use of the word HELPAGE by the defendant as part of its name was bound to create confusion and deception in the minds of the public. The suit was thus decreed.
10. In view of the aforesaid a decree is passed in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in terms of prayer A & B of the plaint and learned Counsel for the plaintiff does not press the remaining prayers. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
IA No. 2395/2004
No further directions are called for in this application in view of the suit being decreed. Application stands disposed of.
