In Shubham Plywood, Rajesh Chheda, Proprietor
(Plaintiff) v Shubham Plywood Park P.K. Loohda (Jain),
Proprietor (Defendant), the Plaintiff alleged the Defendant of
using their registered mark "SHUBHAM" in "SHUBHAM
PLYWOOD" and "SHUBHAM PLYWOOD PARK".
It was observed that the Plaintiff's trademark
"SHUBHAM" was registered along with the symbol of
swastika at the right side and the word "PLYWOOD" was not
there. As such, the averment that the registered trademark is
"SHUBHAM PLYWOOD" was not correct. Further, the Plaintiff
was unable to place material on record to substantiate the case
except photographs of the shop name "SHUBHAM PLYWOOD" and
one visiting card. The Plaintiff's contention was only against
the particular Defendant on the ground that they conducted their
businesses in the same area and therefore, the suit and Motion for
interim relief was restricted to that area only.
The defendants resisted the allegations on various grounds and
averred that since 2001-2001 they were conducting their business
under the name and style of "SHUBHAM SANITARY &
HARDWARE" and as the business also contained the business of
plywood, they adopted the name of "SHUBHAM PLYWOOD PARK".
They contended that there was no intention on their part to use or
mis-use the name of the Plaintiff's alleged name
"SHUBHAM". Further, the word "SHUBHAM" was in
any case a common word. They also stated that they were neither
using the logo "SHUBHAM" with a swastika mark nor selling
plywood under the Plaintiff's trademark. They stated that in
fact they conducted their business of plywood of different variety
and names like "VALLEY"; "HARSH GOLD".
The Bombay High Court held, that merely adopting the name of a
shop "SHUBHAM" by putting the word "SHUBHAM" is
not sufficient to grant interim relief as prayed by the
Plaintiff's in the particular case. Further, the Court stated
that there was nothing to show that the Defendant's were
selling the product/plywood under the trademark "SHUBHAM"
with the swastika symbol as that of the Plaintiff's . In fact,
the Defendants were selling or doing similar business of selling
plywood of other band. The Court said that there cannot be an order
preventing the Defendants from dealing with the plywood of other
With regard to the effect of descriptive, generic and household
words, the Court referred to the case of Plus Inc. v. Consim
Info Private Limited and Network Solution Inc, where it was
held that the words "India" and "Property" in
the Plaintiff's domain name were generic and descriptive and
therefore could not be protected as trademark.
In I.T.C. Ltd v G.T.C. Industries Ltd. and Ors, a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court had observed that
laudatory, descriptive and commonly used words cannot be registered
under the Trade Marks Act.
Injunction was refused in Asian Paints Limited v Home
Solutions Retail (India) Limited by the Bombay High Court
holding that the expression "HOME SOLUTIONS" could not
claim exclusivity on claims of becoming inherently distinctive of
any single person.
Thus, on these abovementioned grounds , the Court dismissed the
Notice of Motion.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This article enunciates the recent, much awaited, and landmark judgment delivered on September 16, 2016 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court throwing light on the important provisions of the Copyright Act, 1962.
The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patents Rules 1972, came into force on 20th April 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The Patents Act was largely based on the recommendations of the Ayyangar Committee Report headed by Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. One of the recommendations was the allowance of only process patents with regard to inventions relating to drugs, medicines, food and chemicals.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).