Trade Mark “RIYAAN” for detergent powder - Appellant restrained from using deceptively similar trademark
Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Interim Injunction in Trademark Dispute Between Family Members, The Court restrains Chandiram Shadiza from using the "RIYAAN" trademark, citing potential consumer confusion with Lokesh Shadiza's "Rihaan Detergent Powder".
In a recent judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the interim injunction granted by the trial court, restraining Chandiram Shadiza from using the trademark "RIYAAN" for his detergent powder. This decision comes in the backdrop of a family feud over trademark rights, where Chandiram and Lokesh Shadiza, nephew and uncle respectively, are embroiled in a legal battle over deceptively similar trademarks.
The case, titled Chandiram Shadiza v. Lokesh Shadiza, revolves around the use of the "RIYAAN" trademark by Chandiram for detergent powder, which Lokesh alleges is deceptively similar to his own trademarked product, "Rihaan Detergent Powder". The trial court had previously granted an interim injunction in favor of Lokesh, citing a prima facie case of trademark infringement, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.
Chandiram, represented by Senior Advocate Shri Manoj Paranjpe, argued that the trial court erred in its decision, emphasizing that the trademark "RIYAAN" had been registered years before the dispute. He further contended that the issue stemmed from a familial disagreement rather than genuine trademark infringement.
However, the High Court, led by Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, found no jurisdictional error or apparent error on record in the trial court's decision. The judgment highlighted the importance of consumer perception and the potential for confusion between the two trademarks. The Court noted that the packaging, color, and overall presentation of Chandiram's product bore a significant resemblance to Lokesh's, potentially misleading consumers.
The Court also referenced the principles outlined in landmark cases such as American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd. and Pernod Ricard India Private Limited v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, emphasizing the criteria for granting interim injunctions in trademark disputes. These include the likelihood of confusion, balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and public interest.
In dismissing the appeal, the High Court underscored the necessity of protecting established trademarks and preventing consumer deception. The decision reaffirms the trial court's findings and serves as a cautionary tale on the importance of maintaining distinct and non-confusing trademarks, even within familial business disputes.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Interim injunction granted in trademark infringement case - Appellant restrained from using deceptively similar trademark "RIYAAN" for detergent powder to prevent confusion among customers.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 135(2), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 43 Rule 1(r), Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 134, Copyright Act, 1957 Section 62
Chandiram Shadiza v. Lokesh Shadiza, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2785028
