Allowed

Raymond Limited v. Pantaloon Retail (I) Ltd.

Bombay HC20 Aug 2011S/1533/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that the mark 'RAYMEN' is deceptively similar to 'RAYMOND', establishing infringement and passing off. The suit was decreed against the present Defendant 2 for damages and injunctions, and against Defendant 1 for injunctions only, dismissing the claim for specific delivery against the latter due to its representation.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed against Defendant 2 for damages and injunctions. Against Defendant 1, injunction granted but refund of unsold goods not enforced; injunction to expire after 8 weeks.

Raymond Limited Vs Pantaloon Retail (I) Ltd. — Bombay HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

902.s.1533.03

skt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

SUIT NO.1533 OF 2003

¶6

RAYMOND LIMITED ..Plaintiff -Versus-

¶7

Pantaloon Retail (I) Limited

¶8

& Anr. ..Defendants

¶9

Mr.Salil Shah a/w. Mr.Melvyn Fernandes, Ms.Cynthia Pereira i/b Rajani Associates for the Plaintiff.

¶10

Mr.Manish Saurashtri i/b Shantilal & Co. for the Defendants.

¶11

CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 20^TH AUGUST 2011.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

1 This is an action for infringement and for passing off.

¶14

2 The plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the word mark

¶15

‘RAYMOND’. The sales figures mentioned in Exhibit ‘C’ to the plaint establishes the enormous reputation and goodwill developed by the plaintiff. The mark is also a prominent part of the plaintiff’s corporate name.

¶16

3 There is no written statement. There is nothing on record that

¶17

militates against what is stated in the plaint. I am inclined to accept the

¶18

902.s.1533.03

¶19

¶20

averments and submissions as correct.

¶21

4 Mr.Saurashtri, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant no.1-Retail Supplier in whose premises the goods manufactured by defendant no.2 are sold, makes a statement that defendant no.1 has stopped keeping the second defendant’s goods using the mark ‘RAYMEN’ and it has no intention of doing so in future either. The statement is accepted and it is so ordered.

¶22

5 The impugned mark ‘RAYMEN’ is visually and phonetically deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark ‘RAYMOND’. In fact phonetically the two marks are almost identical.

¶23

6 The plaintiff has therefore established the case of infringement and for passing off.

¶24

7 In view of the reasonable stand taken by defendant no.1, at least, at this stage, I am not inclined to pass any orders for damages against defendant no.1.

¶25

8 Defendant no.2 has remained absent throughout. The plaintiff has claimed damages of Rs.5 lacs. The defendants, as stated above has

¶26

3 - 902.s.1533.03

¶27

failed to appear. I am inclined, therefore, to draw an adverse inference against the defendants for not having remained present and not filing the written statement to the effect that they have remained absent knowing that their records would indicate that the plaintiff has suffered damages in excess of what is claimed.

¶28

9 The suit is decreed as against defendant no.2 in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c), (e) and (i). Costs to be quantified as per rules.

¶29

Prayer (b) however, shall be implemented only after the expiry of a period of eight weeks after the period of limitation for filing the appeal against this order expires.

¶30

10 The suit is decreed as against defendant no.1 in terms of prayers (a) and (b).

¶31

Prayer (e) is not granted in view of the statement that defendant no. 1 does not have any goods bearing the impugned mark.

¶32

Needless to clarify that in the event that of the defendants obtaining goods bearing the plaintiff’s mark legally and validly, they will not be prevented from dealing with them.

¶33

Refund of court fees, if any, as per rules.

¶34

¶35

902.s.1533.03

Raymond Limited v. Pantaloon Retail (I) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raymond Limited v. Pantaloon Retail (I) Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. Vs Gurmukh Singh Bal /So Makhansingh and Ranjeet Singh Bal

Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. Vs Mukesh G. Gajbhiye and Anr.

Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. Vs Rajesh S. Shukla and Anr.

Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Care Ltd. and Anr. Vs v.L.Pharma

Indian Express Newspapers (Mumbai) Vs the Audit Bureau of Circulations Ltd. and Ors. and the Indian Express Ltd.

G. Laxmi Narayanan Vs M/S. Laxmi Production