The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Khadi & Village Industries Commission vs Raman Gupta & Ors.consisting of Justice Prathiba M. Singhawarded damages to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs and costs of Rs.2 lakhs in favour of Khadi & Village Industries Commission.
Facts
This suit was filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages, delivery up, etc. The Plaintiff is a statutory body established by the ‘Khadi and Village Industries Commission Act of 1956’.The Plaintiff’s ‘KHADI’ trademarks are also registered in various other jurisdictions/regions. It hosts its website under the domain name ‘www.kviconline.gov.in’ which is registered since 1st July, 2010.Defendants are using the trading style ‘KHADI BY HERITAGE’, the corporate name ‘KHADI BY HERITAGE’, as also, the mark ‘KHADI BY HERITAGE’, and the ‘Charkha Logo’ in various forms. They are also operating a website by the name ‘https://khadi-byheritage.business.site/’, amongst others. Thus, it is the case of the Plaintiff that the use of the trademark ‘KHADI’ in this manner, especially in relation to medical products raises enormous concerns in respect of the quality of these products apart from constituting violation of various statutory and common law rights of the Plaintiff.
Procedural History
An ex parte ad interim injunction was granted by this Court restraining the Defendantsfrom manufacturing, selling, offering for sale any products including the PPE kits, masks, hand sanitizers, fireballs or any other products bearing the trademark ‘KHADI BY HERITAGE’ or any of the artistic works/wordmarks/logos used by the Plaintiff. They were also restrained from using the trade mark KHADI either on a stand-alone basis or in a logo form.
Observations of the Court
The Bench noted that the Plaintiff, being the registered owner of the trademark ‘KHADI’ and its variants, since the year 2014 with the user claim of 1956 in several classes in Hindi and English, is entitled to protection of the said mark. Even the ‘Charkha Logo’, depicted hereinabove, was adopted by the Plaintiff in the year 1956 and has been used extensively on the products and services provided by the Plaintiff. Further, the mark ‘KHADI’ has been protected repeatedly by this Court, as well as, in a number of INDRP and UDRP proceedings.
It further opined that the sale of PPE kits, masks, hand sanitizers, fireballs, etc. by the Defendants, under the mark ‘KHADI’, ‘KHADI INDIA’ along with the 'Charkha Logo’ would be a complete violation of the Plaintiff’s rights in the same. Such use would also result in causing irreparable confusion to the consumers, who may believe the Defendants’ products to be genuine.
Relying on Disney Enterprises Inc. &Anr. v. Balraj Muttneja&Ors., it was also noted that no ex parte evidencewould be required in this matter.
Judgment
The Bench concluded that such use of the Plaintiff’s mark ‘KHADI’ by the Defendants was deliberate, conscious and mala fide in nature. Accordingly, damages to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs and costs of Rs.2 lakhs were awarded in favour of the Plaintiff.
Case:Khadi & Village Industries Commissionvs Raman Gupta &Ors.
Citation: CS (COMM) 133/2022 & I.A.3299/2022
Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh
Decided on: 26thJuly 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
