BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LIMITED v. GOURAV BAJAJ AND ANR
Bajaj Electricals, a prominent Indian electrical products company, filed a suit against Gourav Bajaj for trademark infringement under the Trademark Act, 1999. Gourav Bajaj, operating electrical appliance stores in Punjab under the name "BAJAJ," faced allegations of passing off goods under the Bajaj brand. The court ruled in favor of Bajaj Electricals, granting an injunction against Gourav Bajaj's use of the contested trademark, name, label, and domain name
BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LIMITED v. GOURAV BAJAJ AND ANR
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2020
IN
COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 195 OF 2020
WITH
LEAVE PETITION (L) NO. 70 OF 2020
DECIDED ON 3 MARCH, 2020
BRIEF FACTS
Bajaj Electricals is a well-known Indian company that produces a wide range of electrical products such as fans, lighting, and kitchen appliances. Over the years, Bajaj Electricals has built a strong brand name and has become a trusted household name in India.
Recently, Bajaj Electricals filed a suit against Gourav Bajaj, an individual based in Punjab who is not related to Bajaj Electricals. The suit was filed under the provisions of the Trademark Act, 1999, specifically under Section 29(2) of the Act, which deals with infringement of registered trademarks.
The suit alleges that Gourav Bajaj has committed trademark infringement by passing off goods under the Bajaj brand name. Trademark infringement is the unauthorized use of a registered trademark, and passing off is the practice of selling products under the pretence that they belong to a different company.
Gourav Bajaj operates two retail electrical appliances stores in Abohar, Punjab, under the trade name of "BAJAJ" as the "APNA BAJAJ STORE" and "BAJAJ EXCELLENT." He also operates a website www.apnabajajstore.com. Bajaj Electricals argues that the mark "BAJAJ" is a well-known registered trademark and was declared a well-known trademark by the Bombay High Court in 1987 in the case of Bajaj Electricals Limited v Metals & Allied Products and Anr. AIR 1988.
ARGUMENTS BY PLAINTIFF
The Bajaj Electricals vs Gourav Bajaj case involves a dispute over the use of the Bajaj name on products, with Bajaj Electricals as the petitioner. They argue that Gourav Bajaj's use of a similar trademark constitutes trademark infringement and passing off. Bajaj Electricals contends that their Bajaj trademark is well-known and that Gourav Bajaj's use of a similar trademark is likely to cause confusion among customers and damage the reputation of the Bajaj brand. Moreover, Bajaj Electricals claims that Gourav Bajaj's use of the Bajaj name is an act of unfair competition and violates their rights under the Trademarks Act, of 1999. As a result, they seek damages and an injunction against Gourav Bajaj to prevent him from using the Bajaj trademark.
ARGUMENTS BY DEFENDANT
Gourav Bajaj, the respondent in a legal case, presented an argument stating that he has been using his name in conjunction with the word "Bajaj" and has not utilized the Bajaj Electricals trademark. He argued that his products cater to a different market segment and there is no possibility of confusion among customers. Gourav Bajaj also claimed that he has been using the Bajaj name for many years, and in the past, Bajaj Electricals has not taken any legal action against him. Furthermore, he contended that Bajaj Electricals' trademark is not widely known, and his use of the Bajaj name does not constitute unfair competition.
JUDGEMENT BY THE COURT
"I have carefully considered the evidence presented and reviewed the record. Based on the material provided, it appears that the plaintiff's registered BAJAJ trademark and artistic labels have been established and that the plaintiff has acquired rights in their use. It is clear that the defendant's trademark, name, label, and domain name, which are used for their goods/services, are nearly identical or, at the very least, similar to the plaintiff's well-known BAJAJ mark.
The plaintiff has been using the name BAJAJ since 1961, and their status as a well-known figure has been recognized by both courts and the registry. The registrar referred to the plaintiff's mark while reviewing the defendant's mark. These elements lend validity to the plaintiff's argument that the defendant's adoption and use of the disputed name, trademark, label, and domain name are dishonest.
In these circumstances, it is compelling to grant ad-interim relief to the plaintiff, as they are likely to suffer harm if the requested relief is not granted. Despite notice, no one has appeared on behalf of the defendants. The plaintiff is the more convenient party in this situation. If the defendant's acts of infringement persist, the plaintiff is also likely to sustain irreparable harm."
COURT ANALYSIS
The court found in favour of Bajaj Electricals in their suit against Gourav Bajaj, concluding that his use of a similar trademark constituted trademark infringement. The court granted an injunction against Gourav Bajaj to prevent further use of the contested trademark, name, label, and domain name, emphasizing the importance of protecting well-known trademarks and preventing acts of infringement.
