The Correct Choice
Order of the Delhi High Court in Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. SNJ Distillers Private Limited & Anr. and more...
Case in Focus
The Delhi High Court in the case of Allied Blenders and Distillers Pvt. Ltd. v. SNJ Distillers Private Limited & Anr. (CS(COMM) 115/2022; decision dated 19.04.2023) has restrained the defendants from using the mark “Green Choice” having held the same to be similar to the plaintiff’s mark “Officer’s Choice”. One factor that played heavily on the judge’s mind were the previous enforcement actions taken by the plaintiff and the favourable orders whereby third parties were restrained from using the mark “Choice”. The next time a client says “oh we don’t wanna file a suit against this party, we’ll just send a cease & desist” show them this judgement!
Apart from highlighting the importance of regular enforcement, the judgement reminds us of a few important first principles. First and foremost, the Court draws a negative inference from the absence of a justification for the adoption of the mark “Green Choice” by the defendant.
Second, the Court has dealt with the objection of delay in some detail. The Court has reiterated that if the defendant acts fraudulently with the knowledge that he is violating plaintiff’s right then in that case, even if there is inordinate delay of the plaintiff, relief of injunction cannot be denied. In general, a Court will not deny protection to a plaintiff only on ground of delay and laches as denying such a relief would amount to putting seal of approval on the conduct of the defendant in deceiving the public into believing that his goods are those of another.
Third, while dealing with the defence of acquiescence, the Court has stated that relief of injunction cannot be denied to a plaintiff as against a defendant who consciously infringes a registered proprietor’s trademark on the specious plea that plaintiff has acquiesced in the use. Moreover, acquiescence requires express assent by the plaintiff to the defendant using the trademark and encouraging him to continue with the business.
Fourth, after being put to notice if the infringer continues to indulge in infringing activities, he does so at his own peril. It is not permissible for the infringer to claim that the balance of convenience is in his favour.
Case I am reading
Sirona Hygiene Private Limited v. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and Ors. (CS(COMM) 503/2022; decision dated 14.03.2023) and the inherent inconsistency betweenthe coordinate judges of the Delhi High Court IPD.
Quote I’m pondering
“Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it.” — Søren Kierkegaard