In Rich Products Corporation & Anr. v. Indo Nippon Food Ltd 2007 (35) PTC 15 (Del.), the Delhi High Court decided on the issue of exclusivity in relation to whole and parts of a trademark.
Facts
An injunction application was filed by the Plaintiffs/ Rich Products for the relief of restraining the Defendants/Indo Nipon Foods Ltd. from using the trade mark ‘WHIP TOPPING’ which according to the Plaintiff was infringing their registered trademark ‘RICH’S WHIP TOPPING. Along with the injunction application the plaintiff also sought an ad interim injunction to restrain the defendants from passing off and infringement of their copyright in packaging, color schemes instructions etc. The Plaintiff claimed that they were the registered owners of the trademark RICH’S WHIP TOPPING in class 30 in India and that the trademark WHIP TOPPING was pending registration. They also claimed the usage of the said registered mark since 1945 and in India from 1991. It was their case that during April 2003 they came across the defendant’s product BELLS WHIP TOPPING and alleged that it was identical to their mark due to the same color schemes and packaging. It was further alleged that due to these similarities and the plaintiff’s world wide goodwill, the defendants were not only infringing the trademark but was also attempting to pass off its product as that of the plaintiffs.
It was contented by the plaintiff’s that the trademark had to be taken as a whole and that in assessing the deceptive similarity, package of the word trademark along with the color schemes, lettering style, design instructions orientation and packing etc had to be considered. But if someone other than the registrant of the trademark introduces these, it would amount to passing off even if only a few essential features are common in the word mark.
The Defendants on the other hand contented that the plaintiff’s mark under class 30 had been registered along with a disclaimer to the effect that the plaintiff would have no claim over the letter “S” and “TOPPING”. The Defendants submitted that the Plaintiffs ought to have submitted that fact in the suit. They further contended that such an omission of a vital material fact would make the suit liable for dismissal. They further contented that the WHIP TOPPING was the name of the product itself and hence generic in nature and thereby no one can claim exclusivity over the same. In the light of disclaimer, the Court held that the essential feature of the Plaintiff’s mark was RICH’S where as the defendant’s was BELLS and that the two were entirely different.
The Court though admitted the prior use claim of the Plaintiff, but as far as the question of infringement of plaintiff’s trademark was concerned, held that the expression WHIP TOPPING had become descriptive of the product. Apart from that, the disclaimer was also in place, and hence, the plaintiff prima facie was not entitled to claim exclusivity over the expression WHIP TOPPING. Considering the above facts, the Court found that the distinctive features in the Plaintiff’s trademark and Defendant’s trademark were the words RICH’S and BELLS and that there was no similarity between the marks in that respect. The Court further found that on visual examination, the packages of the product were different and thus there was no scope for passing off and thereby dismissed the injunction application.
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.