Recently, the Delhi High Court presided over by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Prathiba M Singh, issued a significant injunction against Kerala-based furniture store "IKEA Luxury Furniture" in response to a trademark infringement suit filed by multinational furniture giant Inter IKEA Systems BV.
Brief Facts:
The plaintiff, Inter IKEA Systems BV, approached the court seeking protection for its trademark 'IKEA.' The plaintiff asserted that it had been using the mark globally since 1943 and in India since 2008. The mark, associated with the plaintiff's home furnishing products and services, was claimed to be well-known and held statutory and common law rights. The plaintiff highlighted its extensive global presence and the registration of the 'IKEA' mark in over 85 countries, including India.
IKEA Luxury Furniture, the defendant in this legal saga, was accused of infringing upon the plaintiff's trademark. The defendant, operating in Calicut Road, Thirissur, Kerala, allegedly used the mark 'IKEA' on various furniture items, inside hoardings, and product boxes. Despite a legal notice from the plaintiff, the defendant continued to employ the contested mark, leading to the initiation of legal proceedings.
Contentions of the Parties:
In response to the plaintiff's claims, the defendant asserted its right to use the mark 'IKEA' and denied any infringement. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's use of the mark for identical goods and products, targeting the same consumer segment, posed a threat of irreparable harm. The defendant's purported modification of its store hoarding to 'KEA Luxury Furniture' was deemed insufficient by the plaintiff, as the contested mark persisted within the store.
Observations by the Court:
The High Court noted that the defendant continued to use the contested 'IKEA' mark despite receiving a legal notice from the plaintiff. This persistence formed the basis for the court's finding that the plaintiff faced a genuine threat of irreparable harm due to the defendant's identical use of the mark in connection with similar goods and products.
Furthermore, the court recognized the triple identity test, asserting that the defendant's use of the 'IKEA' mark for identical goods and products, targeting the same consumer segment, justified the grant of an ex-parte ad-interim injunction. Balancing the scales of justice, the court concluded that the plaintiff's well-established rights in the 'IKEA' mark deserved protection, and any delay in restraining the defendant could lead to irreparable harm. Further, the court referred to the case of Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D Keerthi (2023 LiveLaw (SC) 906) where the Supreme Court noted the significance of the circumstances surrounding the trademark dispute and the need for expeditious legal proceedings.
The decision of the Court:
In light of the defendant's failure to cease the use of the 'IKEA' mark, the court's order restrained the defendant from using the mark or any deceptively similar mark on hoardings, stationery, banners, handbills, and promotional materials. Notably, the plaintiff was granted the liberty to approach JustDial for the removal of the defendant's page containing the contested mark.
Case Name: Inter Ikea Systems BV Vs Ikea Luxury Furniture
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prathiba M Singh
Case No.: CS(COMM) 821/2023, I.As. 22633/2023, 22634/2023, 22635/2023, 22636/2023 & 22637/2023
Advocates of the Plaintiff: Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Ms. Tanya Varma, Mr. Rohan Krishna Seth
Advocates of the Respondent: None
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
