A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in a review of one of the appeals stemming from a judgement that decided two appeals, held that the review of the judgement concerning one appeal is maintainable and, on the merits, the court held that portmanteau marks can be protected and granted an injunction against the use of the mark DISPOSAFE.
The judgement arises from a review filed by Disposafe Health & Life Limited & Ors. (“Disposafe”), against the judgement which decided two appeals filed by Disposafe, namely, (1) against a single judge’s order in a suit filed by it against Hindustan Syringes & Medical Devices Ltd.’s (“Hindustan”), whereby the single judge vacated the injunction granted against Hindustan’s use of the DISPOSAFE mark, and (2) against a single judge’s order in a suit filed by Hindustan, whereby the single granted an interim injunction against Disposafe’s use of the marks DISPOCAN and other DISPO formative marks. In the appeals, by way of a common judgment, the Division Bench had limited the injunction granted against Disposafe to the marks DISPOCANN and DISPOVAN, holding that the word DISPO is publici juris. This aspect of the judgement was not challenged under review and the review was filed on the grounds that, while the Division Bench has recorded several findings in favour of Disposafe, it failed to pass an operative order of injunction against Hindustan’s use of the DISPOSAFE mark.
On maintainability, Hindustan’s counsel asserted that, in the event the Division Bench finds that there is an error apparent, it may recall the judgement entirely, and place both the appeals for rehearing, but ought not to make an order only in one appeal, while disposing of the review petition. The Division Bench dismissed this argument and observed that Disposafe’s review concerns only one appeal and does not involve a partial review of both appeals.
On merits, the bench observed that portmanteau words are, per se, not incapable of protection. Accordingly, the bench held that while the word DISPO is publci juris, the term DISPOSAFE can be protected. After perusal of the evidence filed by Disposafe, the bench held that Disposafe is the prior user of the mark DISPOSAFE and has made out a case for grant of injunction against Hindustan’s use of the DISPOSAFE mark and allowed the review petition.
Disposafe Health & Life Limited & Ors. v. Rajiv Nath & Anr. [FAO(OS)(COMM) 272/2018] Judgement dated February 28, 2025
Comments