NIRMA LIMITED V. NIMMA INTERNATIONAL AND ANR. 2010 (42) PTC 307 (DEL)

INTRODUCTION

Courts use several key principles to decide if trademark infringement has happened. This means that the first company to use a trademark, even if they haven't registered it, may have stronger rights than the one who registers it later. Another important principle is the likelihood of confusion. Courts check if the marks look or sound similar enough to confuse customers.

The reputation and distinctiveness of the original trademark also play a big role. If a trademark is well-known and recognized by the public, it gets stronger protection. Courts also ensure that no one misleads the public by making their products or services look like they are from another brand. These principles will be discussed in this article, using a recent case to show how they are applied.

Facts of the Case

1. Plaintiff's Application:

·         The plaintiff, Nirma Limited, applied for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from using the trade marks "Nima Care" and "Nirma" or any deceptively similar marks.

·         An ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted on September 2, 2008, preventing the defendants from using the contested trademarks until the next hearing.

2. Defendant's Application:

·         The defendants, Nimma International, applied for the vacation of the injunction order.

3. Plaintiff’s Trademark Registration:

·         "Nirma" registered in Class 3 since March 8, 1979, under Application No. 34680.

·         "Nima" registered in Class 3 since March 9, 1982, under Application 396185B, also as an associate trademark of "Nirma."

·         "Nima" in Hindi registered since June 22, 1999, under Application Nos. 862159 and 862160.

·         "Nirma" registered across all classes (1-42), and "Nima" registered in all classes except Class 41, where the application is pending.

4. Market Presence:

·         Nirma Limited is a significant player in the Indian detergent market with a market share of about 38% and 20% in the toilet soap market.

5. Defendant’s Business:

·         Defendant No. 1 manufactures and sells cosmetic goods like hair oil, cold cream, shampoo, talcum powder, lip guard, and petroleum jelly under the name "Nimma International" since 1999.

·         Defendant has submitted applications to register multiple trademarks, including "Nimma," "Nimint," "Nirmaline," and "Nima Care."

Plaintiff's Arguments in Detail

1. Market Dominance:

·         Nirma Limited is the largest player in the Indian detergent market, holding a market share of approximately 38%.

·         The company also possesses the second largest stake in the toilet soap market, commanding approximately 20% of the market share.

2. Brand Recognition:.

·         The brand "Nirma" has been recognized as a Superbrand in India, supported by various reports and studies.

·         The consumer base of "Nirma" extends to over 2 million people across India.

3. Corporate Identity:

·         The corporate name, Nirma Limited, is officially registered under the Companies Act, 1956.

·         Nirma Limited is publicly listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange and the National Stock Exchange.

4. Diverse Product Range:

·         Besides detergents and soaps, Nirma Limited also uses the trademark "Nirma" for edible goods such as salt and spices.

·         The company is involved in a variety of other business activities.

5. Advertising and Brand Promotion:

·         The trademarks "Nirma" and "Nima" have been extensively advertised across various media platforms, including television, radio, newspapers, and other print media.

·         Continuous advertising has led to progressive increases in the sale of products under the brand names "Nirma" and "Nima."

6. Trademark Registration:

·         The trademarks "Nirma" and "Nima" are registered across multiple classes, with "Nirma" being registered in all classes (1-42) and "Nima" in all except Class 41.

·         The plaintiff holds these registrations to establish exclusive rights over the trademarks.

7. Alleged Infringement by Defendants:

·         Similarity in the names is likely to cause confusion among consumers, leading them to believe there is a connection between the defendant's products and the plaintiff's well-known brand.

Defendants' Arguments in Detail

1. Distinctiveness of Marks:

·         The defendants argue that the use of "NIMSON's" is distinct from the "NIRMA" logo and mark, asserting no possibility of consumer confusion.

·         They emphasize the use of a 3-D hologram on all their products with the marks "NIMSON's" and "NIMMA International" in a specific style, which differentiates their products from those of the plaintiffs.

2. Honest Use and Personal Significance:

·         The mark "NIMMA" was adopted by Himanshu Chaddha, the proprietor of the first defendant, out of respect for his mother Nirmal Chadha, known by her nickname "NIMMA."

3. Membership in Trade Bodies:

·         The defendant organization is affiliated with esteemed trade and commercial associations, including FICCI, ASSOCHAM, ITPO, and CHEXIM.

·         They claim protection under Section 35 of the Trademarks Act for their use of the mark "NIMMA INTERNATIONAL."

4. Ownership Dispute:

·         The defendants dispute the plaintiff’s ownership of trademarks Nos. 346840, 396185, 862159, and 862160.

·         They point out that the registration certificates show that the registered owner is not the plaintiff but some other company or companies.

5. Prior Use and Opposition:

·         The defendant submits that they have been using the marks "NIMSON's NIMACARE" and "NIMMA INTERNATIONAL" since 1999 for cosmetic goods, including lip guard and white petroleum jelly.

.

6. Specific Use of Marks:

·         The defendants claim that the mark "NIMMA INTERNATIONAL" is used only in relation to specific cosmetic products and not for detergents or soaps, further minimizing the likelihood of confusion.

7. Challenge to Trademark Registrations:

·         The defendants contend that the registrations relied upon by the plaintiff do not confer any rights upon them.

·         They argue that the trademarks are liable to be rectified or removed from the Registry of Trade Marks under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

·         They assert that the plaintiff is not the registered proprietor of the trademarks in question.

8. Continuous Cause of Action:

·         The plaintiff claims the cause of action is continuous, beginning when they first learned of the defendant's use of the domain www.nimma_international.com in June 2008 and continuing with each sale of goods under the mark "Nima Care."

·         The defendants argue that this continuous cause of action is unfounded and lacks merit.

COURT JUDGEMENT AND ANAYLSIS

1. Ownership of Trademarks: The court evaluated Nirma Ltd.'s claim to trademarks initially registered by Nirma Chemical Works Ltd. Despite lacking direct transfer evidence, Nirma Ltd. provided Form TM-23 (filed in 2001) requesting the new owner registration. Legal precedents indicated that pending assignment registration doesn't prevent legal actions for infringement. The court deemed Nirma Ltd.'s ownership claim credible enough to proceed.
2. Legal Standard for Infringement and Passing Off: The court referenced prior judgments emphasizing prior user rights in passing off and infringement cases. A joint reading of Sections 27 and 28 of the Trademarks Act clarified that trademark registration does not grant new rights beyond common law.
3. Extensive Use and Reputation: The plaintiffs supported their claims with documents like brochures, invoices, and press accounts related to Nirma's products. The extensive use of the "Nirma" mark, evidenced by significant sales, advertising, and promotional expenses, demonstrated its strong market presence.
4. Comparison of Marks: The court noted that the presumption under Section 29(3) of the Trademarks Act doesn't apply to dissimilar goods. The general test of likelihood of confusion, based on Supreme Court decisions, considers factors like the look and sound of the words, the nature of the goods, and the type of customers. The court concluded that "NIMSONS" and "NIRMA" are phonetically and semantically distinct, finding no infringement or passing off concerning the "NIMSONS" mark.
5. Injunction on "NIMMA INTERNATIONAL": The court found that "NIMMA INTERNATIONAL" could cause confusion with "NIRMA" due to the latter's established reputation. Section 29(5) of the Act indicates that a registered trademark is infringed if used as a trade name for registered goods or services. The defendants lacked ownership of a registered trademark for "NIMMA," and the plaintiffs' strong registration for "NIRMA" supported their case. The defendant's argument that "Nimma" was a family name was insufficient to avoid confusion or dilution of Nirma Ltd.'s trademark rights.
6. Relief Granted: The court restrained the defendants from using "NIMMA" or any similar mark in their trading name or products until the suit's disposal. No injunction was granted regarding the "NIMSONS" mark.

CONCLUSION AND ANALYSIS

The court's decision in this case demonstrates a fair application of trademark laws. It emphasized the extensive use and strong reputation of the "Nirma" mark in specific product categories, ensuring protection of its market identity. However, the court did not support claims regarding the "Nimsons" mark, as there wasn't enough evidence to prove it could confuse customers..

For plaintiffs, it's crucial to have solid proof showing they've used their trademark before and that consumers know it well. This proof can include things like invoices, ads, and surveys showing their brand's reputation. They should also act quickly to challenge any new trademarks that could cause problems.

Defendants, on the other hand, need to do thorough checks to make sure no one else is using the trademark they want. They should keep records showing how their mark is unique and be ready to defend themselves if accused of copying or misleading customers.