In a recent order, the Delhi High Court emphasized that plaintiffs seeking injunctive relief must establish a prima facie case and accordingly granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was using the mark ALLY CENTURY to market and sell products identical to those of the plaintiff, thereby infringing and passing off its CP CENTURY and CPWL CENTURY marks. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had adopted a deceptively similar trademark, trade dress, and artistic work, amounting to trademark infringement, passing off, and copyright infringement. Based on these submissions, the court found a strong prima facie case warranting injunctive relief.
The plaintiff became aware of the defendant’s mark in July 2024 during a market survey, discovering that the defendant had recently started using the impugned mark and had filed applications to register the impugned mark on and in relation to identical goods. In August 2024, the plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist letter asserting its longstanding rights in the CENTURY marks since at least 2010. However, the defendant, in its reply, refused to discontinue use of the impugned mark.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s adoption was dishonest and aimed at exploiting the goodwill and reputation of its well-known mark. The plaintiff also contended that the defendant’s use of identical artistic work and lettering style was deliberately designed to create confusion among consumers.
After considering the evidence and arguments, the court found a strong likelihood of confusion and deception due to the similarity between the marks and packaging. It was observed that the defendant had deliberately emphasized CENTURY in its mark to mislead consumers. In light of the plaintiff’s prior use and statutory rights, the court restrained the defendant from manufacturing, selling, or dealing in goods under the impugned mark or any other deceptively similar mark. However, the court clarified that the defendant was free to conduct business using a mark that was not identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s.
Comments