V Guard Industries Ltd v. Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd
This case involves a dispute between V Guard and Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. over the trademark "PEBBLE" used for electric appliances. V Guard, the plaintiff, claimed trademark infringement and passing off against Crompton, the defendant, for using the mark "CROMPTON PEBBLE" for electric irons. The court found substantial similarity between the marks, recognized V Guard's established reputation, and noted the potential for consumer deception. Consequently, the court granted an injunction restraining Crompton from further infringement.
V Guard Industries Ltd v. Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd
CS(COMM) 92/2022
Decided on 12 May, 2022
The company V Guard is engaged in the manufacturing and sale of consumer electronics, electronic apparatus, instruments, parts, and fittings. They own the trademark 'PEBBLE' in Class 11 for electric water heaters and have been using it since 2013. In 2021, V Guard applied for the same trademark 'PEBBLE' in Class 7 for electric irons and ironing machines. However, the Trade Marks Registry raised an objection to it.
On the other hand, Crompton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. (Crompton) was also manufacturing and selling electronic appliances under the trademark 'CROMPTON PEBBLE' in Class 8 for electric irons. However, the registration of the 'CROMPTON PEBBLE' mark was suspended by the Trade Marks Registry due to non-compliance with the limitation period.
V Guard filed a lawsuit claiming that the trademark 'PEBBLE' and the 'CROMPTON PEBBLE' mark were deceptively similar. Therefore, they sought a trademark infringement and passing off an order to be passed.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF
The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant's trademark "CROMPTON PEBBLE" is similar to the plaintiff's trademark "PEBBLE" in terms of phonetics, visuals, structure, and deceptive nature. Both marks are used for competing goods and are sold through similar trade channels.
The plaintiff has been using the mark "PEBBLE" since 2013, and it has gained a reputation for being a symbol of quality products associated with the plaintiff. The defendant is allegedly trying to deceive consumers by creating a false impression of a trade connection or association between the plaintiff and the defendant.
In addition, the plaintiff contends that the defendant not only sells products in the market but also on e-commerce platforms such as Amazon and Flipkart under the name "PEBBLE" instead of "CROMPTON PEBBLE". This behaviour is calculated to deceive consumers, and the adoption of the contested mark is clearly dishonest and intended to exploit the plaintiff's goodwill and reputation.
CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT
The defendant contended that they were using the impugned mark with the word "CROMPTON", which is the source identifier of its product and therefore, the use of the impugned mark shall not create any confusion in the minds of the consumers.
Crompton further argued that the plaintiff’s mark was completely different, when viewed in its entirety, and plaintiff, not being a registered proprietor of the mark “PEBBLE” with respect to specifically ‘electric irons’, could not sue for infringement nor claim any exclusive right for the same.
COURT JUDGEMENT
The Hon’ble High Court allowed the Plaintiff’s application to restrain the defendant from manufacturing, selling or dealing in electric irons under the impugned mark “PEBBLE” or any deceptively similar mark to that of the Plaintiff. The Court observed -
- The Defendant’s claim of the impugned mark being a source identifier is rejected owing to absence of any pleadings regarding the mark’s extensive use and sales turnover in respect of electric irons being sold under the impugned mark.
- The Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case of infringement as well as passing off and in case if the Defendant is allowed to use the impugned mark PEBBLE, Plaintiff would suffer irreparable injury in its business with respect to its trademark, goodwill and reputation.
COURT ANALYSIS
The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in favor of the Plaintiff, V Guard, underscores the importance of protecting established trademarks and preventing deceptive practices in the marketplace. The court's decision highlights several key principles:
- Substantial Similarity: The court recognized the substantial similarity between the Plaintiff's trademark "PEBBLE" and the Defendant's mark "CROMPTON PEBBLE" in terms of phonetics, visuals, and deceptive nature, especially considering they were used for competing goods.
- Established Reputation: V Guard's long-standing use of the "PEBBLE" mark since 2013 and its association with quality products helped strengthen the case for trademark protection. The court acknowledged the reputation and goodwill associated with V Guard's trademark.
- Consumer Deception: The court considered the potential for consumer confusion and deception arising from the Defendant's use of a similar mark, particularly in e-commerce platforms where consumers might not have the opportunity to physically inspect the products.
- Irreparable Harm: Recognizing the potential irreparable harm to V Guard's business, trademark, goodwill, and reputation if the Defendant were allowed to continue using the contested mark, the court granted the injunction to restrain the Defendant from further infringement.
Overall, the judgment reaffirms the significance of protecting intellectual property rights, maintaining consumer trust, and ensuring fair competition in the marketplace. It sets a precedent for safeguarding established trademarks and preventing deceptive practices that could harm businesses and consumers alike.
