top of page
SC IP

USHA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v.HASEEN AHMED, TRADING AS TUSHA SEWING MACHINE CO.

Recently, the Delhi High Court granted an ad interim injunction in favour of Usha International Limited (“Plaintiff”) restraining Mr. Haseen Ahmed, trading as Tusha Sewing Machine (“Defendant”) from using the mark TUSHA in respect of sewing machines.


Established in the year 1934, the Plaintiff is one of India's leading consumer durable manufacturing and marketing companies, and deals in various electrical appliances, such as fans, sewing machines, water heaters, etc. The Plaintiff adopted the trade mark USHA as early as the year 1936, and its first registration for the mark USHA in respect of ‘sewing machines’ dates back to 1942. The Plaintiff has also secured copyright registrations for its USHA logos in the 1970s.


It was the case of the Plaintiff that it gained knowledge of the use of the mark TUSHA and TUSHA logo in the first week of March 2022, and thereafter sent the Defendant a cease and desist letter. On the other hand, the Defendant asserted that the mark TUSHA was registered with respect to sewing machines and its parts. Countering this, the Plaintiff argued that the registration granted to Defendant in respect of the mark TUSHA was during the COVID-19 pandemic, and pursuant to the order of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi allowing oppositions against these registrations, the Plaintiff has opposed the Defendant’s application. Further, the Plaintiff submitted that its mark USHA has been declared to be a “well-known” trade mark.


The court was of the view that the Defendant’s mark was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s well-known trade mark USHA, and accordingly granted an ad interim injunction in its favour. The court has also appointed a local commissioner to visit the Defendant’s premises, and take stock of the Defendant’s goods bearing the mark TUSHA and/or the TUSHA logo.


Usha International Limited Vs Haseen Ahmed, trading as Tusha Sewing Machine Co. [CS (COMM) 549/2022] Order dt. 08/08/2022, Delhi High Court

37 views0 comments

Comentários


bottom of page