The Plaintiff-Astral Ltd. is a renowned manufacturing company popularly known for their pipes and other allied products. In the present matter, the Defendant- Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd was claim to infringing their registered Trademark “CPVC PRO” to which the Hon’ble Delhi High Court took cognizance and passed an order directing the Respondent to do right by the rightful owner of the Trademark.
Brief Facts of the Case
1. The Plaintiff company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, and selling high-quality pipes, parts, and fittings for use in plumbing, sewage, drainage, fire protection, and the like. In the year 2004, the plaintiff company became the first entity to launch Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC) piping systems in India. The plaintiff has filed and obtained various registrations in respect of the mark ‘CPVC PRO’ and ‘CPVC PRO’ formative trademarks. On account of its superior quality, continuous and extensive use, and large-scale publicity, the plaintiff’s trademark ‘CPVC PRO’ has acquired an immense reputation and goodwill in the market. Accordingly, the plaintiff claims both statutory as well as common law rights in the trademark ‘CPVC PRO’. The Defendant has also filed various trademark applications in respect of similar products which are pending as of date. The grievance of the plaintiff is with regard to the impugned mark ‘CPVC FLOWPRO’, wherein ‘CPVC’ and ‘PRO’ are being used together and the same is similar to the trademark of the plaintiff, ‘CPVC PRO’. The trademark application of the defendant was filed in January 2021, on a “proposed to be used basis”, whereas the Plaintiff has been using the ‘CPVC PRO’ marks since 2016. The adoption of the trademark ‘CPVC FLOWPRO’ by the defendant is dishonest and an attempt to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff. The matter was first brought to the notice of the Learned Single Bench at the High Court of Delhi which passed an opinion in the impugned order dated 03.02.2023. Aggrieved by the order and the actions of the Defendant the Plaintiff knocked on the doors of the Learned Division Bench of The High Court of Delhi.
The Impugned Order
Under the Impugned Order dated 03.02.23, the following observations were made:
1. The mark of the Defendant, CPVC FLOWPRO, and the mark of the Plaintiff, CPVC PRO, do not hold any visually, structurally, phonetically, or conceptually similar elements. Hence, the test of deceptive similarity does not hold up to the two.
2. The exercise of the Plaintiff to file multiple registrations suggests mala fide intentions.
3.Generic, laudatory, and descriptive marks cannot be monopolized by anyone. Therefore, the Plaintiff is wrong in claiming a right in the words ‘CPVC’ or ‘PRO’ either individually or in conjunction with each other.
Arguments of Plaintiff
1. The observations made under the impugned order dated 03.02.23 are utterly wrong and do not reflect the truth. The essence of the case itself has been compromised.
2. The observation and misstatements made in the impugned order, especially the ones targeting the Plaintiff are completely wrong and should be disposed of.
3. The mark “CPVC FLOWPRO” of Defendant is visually, structurally, phonetically, and conceptually similar to Plaintiff’s trademark CPVC PRO, and fails the test of deceptive similarity where the mark is examined from the eyes of a person with average intelligence and imperfect recollection, not having the benefit of side-by-side comparison.
4. The Defendant’s convenient use of an identical colour combination of Red and Blue, the same as Plaintiff’s along with the use of the words “CPVC” and “PRO” together for identical goods satisfies the identity test, and therefore, they cannot be permitted to use the impugned mark and deceive the public.
Observations of Court
After extensively listening to both parties and their submissions, the Hon’ble Court took cognizance of the Plaintiff’s grievances and made some insightful observations. A brief snippet can be found below:
1. Directed the Respondent-Defendant to use their modified mark
The Hon’ble Division Bench came to the opinion that the impugned mark of the Respondent “CPVC FLOWPRO” stand-alone stood as a direct infringement of the Plaintiff’s well-established mark. Hence, as agreed to by the Defendant too, directed them to modify their mark and bring the word ‘Ashirvad’ up to the same size as the words ‘CPVC FLOWPRO’ to avoid any room for confusion in the mind of the innocent buyers.
Furthermore, the Hon’ble bench directed the Defendant to never use the words ‘CPVC FLOWPRO’ in the standalone form without using their house mark ‘Ashirvad’.
Additionally, it was made clear that these instructions will stand applicable not only for the pipes but on their brochures and other written literature too.
2. Disposed of the impugned order and its implications.
The Hon’ble Court disposed of the impugned order dated 03.02.2023. With this, the implications made against Plaintiff were also disposed of resulting in a clean and allegations-free slate for the Plaintiff.
3. Settled all such matters existing between the two parties.
With this final order, the Hon’ble Bench made a wise move by announcing any other dispute and litigation between the two parties, including those that were pending before the Trademark Registry, as resolved.
This gracious direction of the Court addressed the plight of the Plaintiffs and saved them from unnecessary hassle and trouble.
4. Directed the Respondent-Defendant to exhaust its product infringing the mark.
Lastly, pleased by the Plaintiff’s prayers, the Hon’ble Bench left no stone unturned by directing the Respondent-Defendant to dispose of its existing stock bearing the old trademark within a period of 6 months only.
Final Word of the Hon’ble Court
Post recording the above-mentioned observations, the Hon’ble Court pronounced all dates canceled for the aforesaid suits, and as both the parties came to an amicable understanding based on the Court’s observations, as a token of acceptance of the order dated 28.04.23 the two Advocate-on-Records were directed to sign the same.
Conclusion
The Hon’ble Court was right in recognizing the grave misfortune the Plaintiff has already suffered through and would have continued to. They were appreciative of the Plaintiff’s arguments and disposed of the matter for both parties.
Mark Shield was pleased to assist the Plaintiff-Astral Limited in the Appeal.
The post Astral Ltd. vs. Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd. appeared first on Markshield.
This post first appeared on Intellectual Property Rights In India, please read the originial post: here
