Mother Sparsh Baby Care Pvt. Ltd. v. Aayush Gupta & Ors. C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 84/2024 & CS(COMM) 129/2022, Judgment dt. October 28, 2024
The Delhi High Court has, in a suit and rectification petition filed by Mother Sparsh Baby Care Pvt. Ltd. (“Mother Sparsh”), permanently restrained one Aayush Gupta, the user and registrant of the mark PLANTPOWERED Device, from infringing Mother Sparsh’s prior registered PLANT POWERED Device marks. The court also allowed the rectification petition filed by Mother Sparsh for removal of the trade mark PLANTPOWERED Device from the Register of Trade Marks.
Mother Sparsh contended that Mr. Gupta’s PLANTPOWERED Device mark is identical to its registered trade marks and that the goods covered by the rival marks are also identical, hence, confusion and deception is bound to arise in the course of trade. Mother Sparsh further argued that it has been using its registered marks since the year 2019. On the other hand, Mr. Gupta, while also claiming use since 2019, was able to produce documents only from 2020.
Mother Sparsh further submitted that upon coming across Mr. Gupta’s registration for the PLANTPOWERED Device mark, it had sent a legal notice to Mr. Gupta, in reply to which Mr. Gupta filed a false complaint of trade mark infringement with the e-commerce platform, Amazon, which resulted Mother Sparsh’s products being de-listed, and caused substantial losses. Mother Sparsh further alleged that, at the interim stage, the court took note of the fact that Mr. Gupta had filed invoices and documents, which appeared fabricated, to show use of his mark since 2020. Lastly, Mother Sparsh contented that considering Mr. Gupta’s mala fide conduct, litigation costs ought to be awarded to Mother Sparsh.
The court noted that Mr. Gupta and the other defendants’ right to file written statements had been closed, they have been proceeded ex-parte, and as such, the contentions in the plaint are deemed to be admitted. The court held that the rival marks are aurally, visually, structurally and conceptually similar and cannot be distinguished from each other. Further, since the goods are the same, consumer confusion is bound to arise. The court also observed that the defendants’ conduct was questionable, and has caused losses to Mother Sparsh, and as such, it is entitled to costs. The court, accordingly, decreed the suit in Mother Sparsh’s favour, allowed the rectification petition, and awarded litigation costs amounting to INR 7 lakhs to Mother Sparsh.
Comments