Allowed

Metro Shoes Ltd. and Rafique Abdul Malik Malik v. Merito

Bombay HC8 Jul 2014S/73/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Suit No. 73 of 2013, the Bombay High Court granted an ex-parte decree in favor of M/s. Metro Shoes Ltd. restraining M/s. Merito from using the mark MERITO. The court found the defendant unauthorized in using a mark confusingly similar to the plaintiff's well-known METRO trademark on leather articles. Monetary damages of Rs. 2 lakhs were also awarded.

What did the court decide?

Injunctive order restraining use of MERITO mark, damages of Rs. 2 lakhs, and costs awarded to plaintiffs.

2.The Plaintiffs have tendered an affidavit 8th July 2014 of affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of one Jaiprakash Desai, the Company Secretary of the Plaintiffs. There is also a compilation of documents. These are photocopies. The originals are also available in Court. The compilation of photocopies is taken on record and marked Exhibit “P1” (collectively). The originals are returned to the advocates for the Plaintiffs.

3.The Plaintiffs seek orders restraining the Defendant from using the impugned mark MERITO by itself or in combination of either a suffix or prefix that infringes or is deceptively or confusingly similar to the Plaintiffs’ trade mark METRO in respect of leather articles such as wallets, purses, belt, travelling bags, cases and especially shoes and footwear. A monetary decree for Rs. 2 lakhs as damages is also sought.

4.The Plaintiffs’ case is that they are the proprietors of the well-known and highly reputed mark METRO. This mark has been used since 1955 by the Plaintiffs’ predecessors in title. From 1995, it has been used as a mark on various goods. It has been so used openly, extensively and without interruption. It is still in use today. The Plaintiffs’ predecessors in title have registered the mark METRO in three different classes and for various types of goods. Details have been set out in both the plaint, as also in the evidence affidavit. The Plaintiffs have also averred that mark METRO is registered for various number of leather articles, bags and similar leather products. There is also evidence to show that the Plaintiffs’ mark is uniquely identified with the Plaintiff and enjoys a high reputation.

5.In August / December 2012, the Plaintiffs’ learned that the Defendant had commenced footwear business in the name and style of MERITO. There is a signboard outside the Defendant’s shop with this name and mark. The Defendant has adopted a mark that is visually, structurally and phonetically similar to that of Plaintiffs’ mark METRO and in respect of same range of goods. All the prominent and essential features of the Plaintiffs’ mark have been

copied including in particular an approximation of the font, layout, get up and dress style adopted by the Plaintiffs, all unique to its mark. The Plaintiffs have been able to prove that there is every likelihood of confusion and deception between two marks, and that the Defendant’s adoption of the mark is neither bona fide nor honest. It is meant to trade on and cash in on the Plaintiffs’ reputation. The similarity is so close that any person looking at the Defendant’s sign is bound to assume that the goods sold by the Defendant originated from the Plaintiffs.

6.Despite notice, the Defendant has not appeared. The Plaintiff is entitled to an ex-parte decree. Therefore, there will be a decree in favour of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendants, in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (e), with costs.

Metro Shoes Ltd. and Rafique Abdul Malik Malik v. Merito

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Metro Shoes Ltd. and Rafique Abdul Malik Malik v. Merito

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Medley Pharmaceuticals Limited Vs Twilight Mercantiles Private Limited and Anr.

Pandurang Kamlakar Patil and Ors. Vs M/S.Soham Builders and Ors. and Dharmibai Dattatray Patil and Anr. (Applicant)

Vinay Amin and Ors. Vs Sajawat Consultants Bombay Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Smt.Vijaya v. Bhosale

Toraytex Weaves Pvt. Ltd. Vs Green Emirates Shipping Travels and Ors.

Rashid S. Oomerbhoy Vs Nargis M. Oomerbhoy and 8 Ors.

Cox and Kings (India) Ltd. Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Anr.