Soothe Healthcare Private Limited vs Dabur India Limited
This case involves a dispute between Soothe Healthcare Private Limited and Dabur India Limited over alleged trademark infringement. Soothe Healthcare claimed that Dabur's use of "SUPER PANTS" infringed upon their trademarks "SUPER CUTESTERS," "SUPER CUTES," and "SUPER CUTEZ." The Delhi High Court dismissed Soothe Healthcare's appeal, ruling that Dabur's use of "SUPER" was descriptive and not infringing.
Soothe Healthcare Private Limited vs Dabur India Limited
FAO(OS) (COMM) 100/2022 & CAV 112/2022
Decided on: 11.07.2022
BRIEF FACTS
The Plaintiff, Soothe Healthcare Private Limited, has filed an appeal against the judgement of a single judge. The appeal seeks to challenge the verdict in relation to the alleged infringement of its trademarks - "SUPER CUTESTERS", "SUPER CUTES" and "SUPER CUTEZ" - by Dabur India Limited's trademark "SUPER PANTS". The two companies operate in the same class of goods.
The case revolves around the issue of trademark infringement. Soothe Healthcare Private Limited claims that Dabur India Limited's use of the trademark "SUPER PANTS" is a violation of its intellectual property rights. The Plaintiff's trademarks, "SUPER CUTESTERS", "SUPER CUTES" and "SUPER CUTEZ", have been registered and are being used in connection with products that fall under the same category as Dabur India Limited's "SUPER PANTS". Hence, the Plaintiff believes that the use of the trademark "SUPER PANTS" by the Defendant company is causing confusion among consumers.
This appeal seeks to ensure that the trademark rights of Soothe Healthcare Private Limited are protected and that Dabur India Limited is held accountable for any infringement thereof.
CONTENTION OF PLAINTIFF
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking an interim injunction to prevent the defendant company from using the trademark "SUPER PANTS" which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trademarks. The plaintiff claimed that they are the prior adopter and registered owner of "SUPER CUTESTERS", "SUPER CUTES" and "SUPER CUTEZ", while the defendant's application is based on a "proposed to use" basis. The plaintiff also argued that their marks are widely advertised and the products associated with them are identified and associated by the public. Furthermore, the plaintiff stated that the defendant has given no justification for adopting a deceptively similar mark to that of the plaintiff.
CONTENTIONS OF DEFENDANT
The defendant argued that the word "SUPER" is commonly used by various other diaper manufacturers and is thus common to the trade. They further contended that the registration granted to the plaintiff was in respect of the composite marks "SUPER CUTESTERS," "SUPER CUTES," and "SUPER CUTEZ," and not the word mark "SUPER" itself. Therefore, the mere use of the word "super" would not amount to infringement of the plaintiff's mark.
The defendant also argued that the packaging used by them is different and that their trademark is used as a whole, accompanied by the company name Dabur. As a result, there exists no similarity between the marks.
COURT JUDGEMENT
The appeal filed by the Plaintiff was dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The court found no merit in the Plaintiff's argument that the Learned Single Judge had exercised his discretion arbitrarily and had ignored established principles of law.
The Learned Single Judge had correctly concluded that there was no trademark infringement by the Defendant, nor any passing off of their goods as that of the Plaintiff. The word "SUPER" was being used in a laudatory or descriptive manner by the Plaintiff and could not be considered an essential part of their trademark. The Plaintiff had the exclusive right over the word marks "SUPER CUTESTERS", "SUPER CUTES" and "SUPER CUTEZ" as a whole, and not just on the word "SUPER".
The packaging of the products was different and there was no similarity in the packaging except for the presence of the laudatory term "SUPER". The Plaintiff could not claim that the word "SUPER" had acquired a distinctive or secondary meaning when used in respect of diapers.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Soothe Healthcare Private Limited against Dabur India Limited regarding alleged trademark infringement of "SUPER CUTESTERS", "SUPER CUTES", and "SUPER CUTEZ" by Dabur's "SUPER PANTS". The court found that the use of the word "SUPER" by Dabur was not infringing on Soothe Healthcare's trademark rights. The court reasoned that "SUPER" was being used in a descriptive or laudatory manner and was not an essential part of Soothe Healthcare's trademarks. Additionally, the court noted differences in packaging and concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion among consumers. Therefore, the Plaintiff's claims of trademark infringement and passing off were rejected.
