Ceat Limited vs Ramu Kushwha

1. This is an action for infringement of Trade Mark, copyright and passing off. Vide order dated 20^th October, 2023, ex-parte adinterim reliefs were granted against the Defendant for infringement of trade mark and copyright by use of the impugned marks “CREATA” and “CATE” in respect of identical goods. The order was executed by the Court Receiver and during execution of the order the additional impugned mark “CAT” was found, for which amendment was permitted.

¶17

2. It is submitted that the Plaintiff is engaged in the business

¶18

1 of 25

¶19

Shubham

¶20

IA-4131-2025.doc

¶21

of interalia manufacturing and marketing automotive tyres, tubes, flaps and other allied and cognate goods from more than 450 retail stores/outlets named CEAT SHOPPE and CEAT Tyre Stop outlets located across India. The Plaintiff pleads that its origin dates back to the year 1924 when Ceat SpA was established as a Company in Italy. In or around year 1951, Ceat Gomma SpA commenced marketing and selling pneumatic and solid tyres using the trade mark “CEAT” which is an acronym for the Italian word for Electric Cables and Allied Products of Turin and is thus a coined and an invented word.

¶22

3. In India, Ceat Gomma SpA either by itself or through its licensee, has sold its pneumatic and solid tyres for automobiles/vehicles bearing the trade mark CEAT from December 1951 till about December 1966. In 1958, the Plaintiff was incorporated in India under the name and style of Ceat Tyres of India Limited and from 1960, the Plaintiff commenced manufacturing and marketing of tyres under the said trade mark CEAT under license from CEAT SpA, Italy. By deed of assignment dated 22^nd November, 1978, CEAT SpA assigned all its right in the trade mark CEAT along with goodwill of its business for the territory of India in favour of Plaintiff. Vide deed of assignment dated 6^th October, 2010 all rights in the trade mark world wide have been assigned in favour of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of the trade mark CEAT.

2 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

4. It is submitted that the trade mark CEAT occupies a leading and essential feature of the Plaintiff’s corporate name. The various registrations, renewal certificate and online status are set out in paragraph 5 of the plaint with the earliest registration of the word mark “CEAT” being of the year 1961, the “CEAT” label mark being of the year 1987 and CEAT logo being registered in 2020. In order to demonstrate the goodwill and reputation, the details of the various awards bestowed on the Plaintiff are set out in paragraph 11 and in paragraph 12 the sales turnover is set out which for the year 2022-2023 is in excess of Rs. 11,088 Crores and advertisement/promotional expenses are more than Rs. 21,235 Crores.

¶27

5. In the year 2016, the new artistic label packaging for CEAT tyre tubes was designed at the instance of the Plaintiff primarily consisting of the label being divided into equal horizontal parts in unique and arbitrary combination of orange and blue background both forming front side and backside in respect of which copyright registration was obtained on 10^th April, 2018. In year 2021, a new artistic label was designed by the employee of an external agency at the instance of the Plaintiff for packing of CEAT tyre tubes, and the rights in the artistic work were relinquished in favour of the Plaintiff through a No Objection Letter. The Plaintiff is thus the owner of the copyright in the artistic label of CEAT. It is submitted that the Plaintiff

3 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

has applied for registration of label mark which is pending. The trade mark “CEAT” is acknowledged as well known trade mark by this Court vide various judicial orders and the Registrar of Trade Mark has declared the Plaintiff’s trade mark “CEAT” as well known trade mark on 14^th December, 2020.

¶32

6. In so far as the Defendant is concerned, it is pleaded that the Plaintiff learnt about the Defendant’s presence in the first week of October-2023 when the Plaintiff’s investigating team conducted necessary market search and came across the retail outlet shop of Defendant No. 1 i.e Rajesh Service Centre, surreptiously selling ‘CREATA’ and ‘CATE’ tyre tubes in packaging bearing an artwork, colour scheme, get-up, layout and trade dress being deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff’s trade mark and original artistic work of ‘CEAT’. The internet search revealed that the Defendant No. 1 has its presence on third party e-commerce website offering for sell various goods, however the goods of the Defendant No. 1 bearing the impugned mark ‘CREATA’ and ‘CATE’ depicted in pirated artwork were not available on the said website.

¶33

7. In the reply affidavit, the Defendant has raised objection on ground of want of territorial jurisdiction for passing off action as the Defendants are not doing business and working for gain within jurisdiction of this Court and for non-joinder of necessary party. It is

4 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

contended that there is no infringement as Plaintiff are not manufacturing or selling Butyl tubes under Class 12 and there can be no exclusive right over entire classification of goods or services. It is contended that ‘CEAT’ is common to trade and publici juris. It is contended that the Plaintiff has admitted that the word “CEAT” is derived from descriptive word having meaning in Italian language. The said word is not coined or an invented word but common English word widely recognized in public domain and no exclusivity can be claimed by the Plaintiff.

¶38

8. It is contended that passing off action is not maintainable as the Defendants do not sell any goods within the jurisdiction of this Court. It is further contended that the Defendants do not claim any right over trade mark ‘CREATA’ and that the trade mark ‘CEAT’ and ‘CAT’ are not deceptively similar. The Plaintiff is manufacturing tyre and the Defendants are manufacturing ‘BUTYL tubes’ which are different products in course of trade and there is no confusion. As regards infringement of copyright, it is submitted that there is no proper pleading as regards the ownership of copyright.

¶39

9. In rejoinder, it is stated that the Plaintiff carries on business and has its registered office in Mumbai and therefore the Court has territorial jurisdiction in view of Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ( “T. M. Act”) and Section 62 (2) of the Copyright Act,

5 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

It is further stated that the Plaintiff had filed Leave Petition under Clause XIV of Letters Patent (Bombay) to combine the two causes of action which has been allowed. It is stated that the Trade Mark ‘CEAT’ has been declared well known Trade Mark and hence any use of the well known Trade Mark or any deceptively similar mark/label in relation to identical, similar or different description of goods would likely be taken as indicating a connection in the course of the trade between the parties, when no such connection exists.

¶44

10. It is stated that the Plaintiff is proprietor of trade mark and artistic work of ‘CEAT’ and hence no license is required to be obtained from any other party for use in course of trade and that the certificate of copyright registration prima facie evidences the Plaintiff’s ownership rights.

¶45

SUBMISSIONS

¶46

11. Mr. Bhagat, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff has taken this Court through the registration certificates in order to demonstrate the proprietary right in the word mark ‘CEAT’ as well as the label mark. He would further point out the copyright registration in the artistic label of ‘CEAT’ and the sales figure to demonstrate goodwill and reputation. He submits that the ‘CEAT’ logo was registered in 2008 and the device mark of ‘CEAT’ was registered in 2020 with user claim from 7^th May, 2008. He further submits that the Defendant are using

6 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

the impugned marks ‘CREATA’ and ‘CATE’ and would point out to the table of comparison at page 280 of the plaint to contend that the Defendants have copied the essential features of the Plaintiff’s registered trade mark and is marketing its product in pirated artwork. He would further point out that the colour scheme, the three vertical stripes, the placement of the trade mark are the essential features which have been copied by the Defendant. He would submit that as far as mark ‘CATE’ is concerned, the Defendants have jumbled the words. He would submit that during execution of the order, the ASR found additional infringing mark “CAT” depicted under pirated artwork/ trade dress and points out the additional infringing product marketed by the Defendants in deceptively similar artwork having identical colour combination and trade dress as that of the Plaintiff’s product.

¶51

12. In support he relies upon following decisions:

¶52

Manugraph India Limited vs. Simarq Technologies Pvt. Ltd.¹

¶53

Parle Products (P) Ltd vs. J. P. And Co., Mysore²

¶54

Hiralal Parbhudas vs. Ganesh Trading Company³

¶55

Indchemie Health Specialties Pvt. Ltd. vs. Naxpar Labs Pvt. Ltd.⁴

¶56

1 2016 SCC Online Bom 5334

¶57

2 (1972) 1 Supreme Court Cases 618

¶58

3 1983 SCC Online Bom 284

¶59

4 2001 SCC Online Bom 868

7 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

13. Per Contra, Mr. Trivedi, Learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant submits that this Court would not have territorial jurisdiction for passing off action as the Defendants are not doing the business or working for gain within jurisdiction of this Court. He would further submit that the mark of the Plaintiff ‘CEAT’ is common to the trade and has become publici juris . He submits that the Defendants are located at Indore, Madhya Pradesh and the Plaintiff’s use of the mark is within the jurisdiction of this Court as is evident from the sales figure. He submits that during execution of the order, the mark which was found was ‘CAT’. He submits that the Defendants are dealing in two wheeler tubes which are not the goods being dealt with by the Plaintiff. He would further submit that one Mr. Pritpal Vasu was manufacturer and he has not joined as a party by reason of which the plaint must fail for non joinder of necessary party. He submits that the Defendant is not selling goods under the mark ‘CATE’ and ‘CREATA” but ‘CAT’ which is not deceptively similar and no confusion is created by use of the mark ‘CAT’. He would further concede that the Plaintiff’s mark ‘CEAT’ is of prior in use and has acquired reputation and goodwill as registered proprietor of mark however the Plaintiff is not manufacturing ‘BUTYL Tubes’ but tyres and both products are different. He submits that there is no document on record to show the

8 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

relinquishment of the rights in the artistic work by the author which will require evidence to be led.

¶68

14. In support he relies upon following decisions.

¶69

Torrent Laboratories Ltd. Vs. Ciba-Geigy Ltd.⁵

¶70

F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt Ltd.⁶

¶71

Cadila Health Care Ltd vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.⁷

¶72

15. In rejoinder Mr. Bhagat, would point out that he has registration not only in tyres but in tubes and flaps and therefore there is identity of the goods. He submits that initially the infringing mark used by the Defendant was ‘CATE’ and thereafter the mark used is ‘CAT’ which was found to be an additional infringing mark during the execution of the order. He would point out to the investigation report of the Plaintiff in which the Defendants had informed the investigating agency that they can supply the tyre tubes under the mark “CEAT.” He submits that there is no explanation as to adoption of deceptively similar mark. He submits that it is not the pleading of the Defendant that Mr. Pritpal Vasu was running the manufacturing unit and therefore the contention of non joinder of necessary party must fail. As regards the mark being publici juris apart from pleading there is no material

¶73

produced on record.

¶74

5 MANU/GJ/0344/1998

¶75

6 (1969) 2 SCC 716

¶76

7 (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 73

9 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

REASONS AND ANALYSIS:

¶81

16. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the word mark and device mark of CEAT which has been adopted and used by the Plaintiff’s pre-decessor and thereafter by the Plaintiff since the year 1951. Mr. Trivedi does not dispute the proprietary right of the Plaintiff in the registered word/ device mark of “CEAT”. The pivotal defence is that the Defendants are using the trade mark “CAT” which is not deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff’s registered mark.

¶82

17. The registration certificates placed on record prima facie demonstrates the registration of word mark “CEAT” which was applied on 17^th August, 1961 in Class 12. The device mark of CEAT

¶83

was applied for registration on

¶84

14^th January, 1987 in Class 12 in respect of tyres and inner tubes for vehicle wheels. On 27^th August, 1993, the Plaintiff applied for registration of device mark of ‘CEAT’ on proposed to be used basis. In

¶85

2008, the device mark “CEAT” was

¶86

registered on proposed to be used basis. The new artistic label was designed at the instance of the Plaintiff which was registered by the

10 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

Plaintiff under the Copyright Registration Act, 1957. In the year 2016, the new artistic label packaging for CEAT tyre tubes was designed at the instance of the Plaintiff , which was registered by the Plaintiff

¶91

In 2017, the device mark

¶92

under the Copyright Act, 1957.

¶93

of “CEAT”

¶94

was registered with user claim since

¶95

10^th June, 2008. In 2019, the device mark of CEAT

¶96

was

¶97

registered with user claim of 31^st October, 2016. On 7^th January, 2020, the Plaintiff applied for registration of device mark of ‘CEAT’

¶98

which was registered with user claim since 7^th May, 2008. In the year 2021, the new artistic label packaging for CEAT tyre tubes was designed at the instance of the Plaintiff and the author has relinquished its rights in the artistic label by issuing No Objection

11 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

letter in favour of the Plaintiff

¶103

The Plaintiff

¶104

has applied for registration of the said label mark vide Application No. 5790831 in Class 12 which is pending, however the artistic label being designed at the instance of Plaintiff and the no objection issued by the author prima facie indicates the Plaintiff’s subsisting copyright in the artistic work.

¶105

18. Perusal of the various registrations would prima facie indicate that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of word mark/device mark of CEAT and the artistic work of trade mark “CEAT” which was revised from time to time. Being the registered proprietor of the trade mark “CEAT” and owner of copyright in artistic work of “CEAT” the use of deceptively similar mark in pirated artwork constitutes infringement of the registered mark.

¶106

19. The suit was initially filed claiming infringement by the Defendants by use of the mark “CREATA” and “CATE” in marketing tyre tubes bearing an artwork/ colour scheme/ get up/ trade dress deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trade mark “CEAT” and original

12 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

artistic works of “CEAT.” The rival products are reproduced hereinbelow:

¶111

PLAINTIFF’S PRODUCTS

¶112

DEFENDANTS’ PRODUCTS

¶113

20. Prima facie upon overall comparison of the rival products in

13 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

so far as the Defendant’s products marketed under the marks “CREATA” and “CATE” are concerned, the packaging of the Defendant’s product are in identical colour combination of blue with orange and black with orange respectively. The Plaintiff’s mark “CEAT” is written in orange and white colour scheme on the lower blue colour portion of the packaging and depicts the picture of a tyre with the free warranty period prominently displayed on the upper right hand side of the orange colour portion. The Defendant’s mark “CREATA” is written in identical orange and white colour scheme and strategically displayed in the same lower blue colour portion with the upper orange colour portion having picture of tyre with the period of warranty depicted prominently on the upper orange colour portion. The Defendant has merely added alphabets “R” and “A” to CEAT, while copying the essential features of the Plaintiff’s mark.

¶118

21. Similarly in respect of the other mark “CATE”, the Defendant has jumbled the words “CEAT” and used the same in respect of identical products using the identical colour scheme of black and orange with the mark “CATE” displayed strategically in the same manner between three vertical stripes and the description of the product below the mark. What is immediately striking prima facie is the manner in which the Plaintiff’s registered marks are depicted on the packaging and the colour scheme/get-up/trade dress of the Plaintiff’s

14 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

product which has been slavishly copied by the Defendants. The Defendants marks “CREATA” and “CATE” are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered mark and are depicted in a deceptively similar artwork as that of the Plaintiff, which is likely to cause confusion amongst the public and show a likely association with the Plaintiff’s product.

¶123

22. The ad-interim order was executed by the Court Receiver and during execution, the Court Receiver found additional infringing mark “CAT” and “Modern CAT” in blue colour and orange colour pouches pursuant to which the plaint came to be amended seeking injunction against use of the additional mark “CAT”. Perusal of the Court Receiver’s report would show the additional infringing mark which is reproduced herein below:

¶124

23. Upon prima facie perusal of the additional mark “CAT”, the

15 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

Defendant’s product uses the identical colour scheme of orange and blue with orange vertical stripes on the side of the packaging. The mark “CAT” has been displayed prominently while the word “Modern” is in negligible font. The Defendant has dropped the alphabet “E” and is using the word “CAT” in a deceptively similar trade dress having the identical colour combination. There is no explanation given in the reply for using a deceptively similar mark in deceptively similar artwork. It is sought to be contended by Mr. Trivedi that the Defendant does not claim any right in respect of CREATA and CATE, but in the mark “CAT” which is not deceptively similar. In an action for infringement what is required to be seen prima facie is whether the rival marks are close visually, phonetically or structurally. The difference in the word “CAT” and “CEAT” cannot form the basis for holding that the Defendant’s mark is not deceptively similar. It is not necessary that the infringing mark should be identical with the registered mark. In F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co. Ltd vs. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt Ltd (supra) , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the mark must be compared as a whole. It is not right to take a portion of the word and say that because that portion of the word differs from the corresponding portion of the word in the other case there is no sufficient similarity to cause confusion. The true test is whether the totality of the proposed trade mark is such that it is likely to cause deception or confusion or mistake

16 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

in the minds of persons accustomed to the existing trade mark.

¶133

24. In the case of Parle Products (P) Ltd vs. J. P. And Co., Mysore (supra), the Hon’ble Court has laid down that in order to come to the conclusion whether one mark is deceptively similar to the another the broad and essential features of the two are to be considered. They should not be placed side by side to find out that there are any differences in the design and if so whether they are such character as to prevent one design from being mistaken from the other and it is enough if the impugned mark bears an overall similarity to the registered mark as would be likely to mislead person usually dealing with one to accept the other if offered to him.

¶134

25. Upon prima facie comparison of the rival marks, there is visual and structural similarity between the Plaintiff’s registered mark “CEAT” as depicted in the original artwork when compared with the Defendant’s mark of “CAT” in the pirated artwork. The overall similarity has to be considered from the aspect of an average consumer with imperfect recollection. As the rival products are identical, if the consumer asks for CEAT product and is handed over the Defendant’s product marketed under the mark “CAT”, considering that the packet sizes are similar, the font size of the rival marks are similar, the colour scheme of the packaging is similar and both packaging bears close resemblance, the consumer is likely to be deceived in thinking that the

17 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

Defendant’s product is that of the Plaintiff.

¶139

26. The contention that the trade mark ‘CEAT’ being common English word is publici juris is not demonstrated from any material on record. It is necessary for the Defendant to demonstrate prima facie that the marks on which it relies are many and that they are in extensive use and that they have, by reason of that wide usage, passed into the realm of the generic to the extent that they can no longer be said to describe any particular user. It has to be shown that the use by the trade is extensive. [ See Jagdish Gopal Kamath vs Lime & Chilli Hospitality Services⁸ ] Apart from bare assertion in the affidavit-inreply the Defendant has failed to produce any material to demonstrate that the registered trade mark is common to the trade. The fact that the mark has been registered is prima facie evidence of the fact that the same is not descriptive or common to the trade.

¶140

27. As regards the copyright in the artistic work of “CEAT” marks, there is no pleading in the Affidavit in reply that the artistic work of “CREATA”, “CATE” or “CAT” has been designed by the Defendants or by an external agency at the instance of the Defendants. There is no pleading as to the date of use of the artistic work whereas on the other hand, the Plaintiff has prima facie placed material on record to demonstate that the artistic work was designed

¶141

8 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 531.

18 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

at the instance of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff holds the copyright in the artistic work.

¶146

28. The objection raised on the ground of territorial jurisdiction cannot be accepted in view of Section 134(2) of the T. M. Act and 62(2) of the Copyright Act, 1957 which gives jurisdiction to the District Court within the local limits of which the person instituting the suit or proceedings actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. In so far as the relief of passing off is concerned, the provisions of Section 20 of CPC applies, however leave has already been granted under Clause XIV of Letters Patent(Bombay) for combining the cause of action of passing off with the cause of action for infringement of trade mark and copyright and this Court will have jurisdiction in respect of passing off action.

¶147

29. In so far as the objection on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party is concerned, apart from bare pleading there is no specific averment giving the detail of the necessary party which was required to be joined.

¶148

30. Although it is contention of the Defendant that the Defendant is only using the mark ‘CAT’ the Court Receiver’s Report would indicate that the Court Receiver during execution of the order had found infringing mark ‘CREATA’ as well as ‘CATE’ in addition to “CAT”.

19 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

31. In so far as action for passing off is concerned, the tort lies in the misrepresentation by the Defendant to the prospective customers that the Defendant’s goods are that of the Plaintiff. What the Plaintiff is required to establish is goodwill and reputation on the date of the Defendant commencing its activity and that the Plaintiff’s mark has acquired such distinctiveness amongst the consumers that the consumers identify the mark exclusively with the Plaintiff’s product. It is well settled that passing off action is common law remedy aimed at arresting the invasion of right of property in the goodwill and reputation which is apprehended to be injured by the misrepresentation made by Defendant.

¶153

32. In paragraph 12 of the plaint, it is pleaded that the Plaintiff has sold and continues to sell its goods under the trade mark and artwork CEAT and in the last financial year 2022-2023 sold goods bearing the trade mark CEAT in excess of Rs 11,088 crores and has spent more than Rs 21.235 crores towards advertisement and in respect of two wheeler tyre tubes, the sales turnover is in excess of Rs 644.10 crores. Considering the use of the mark “CEAT” by the Plaintiff since the year 1951 in respect of automotive tyres, tubes etc is being identified exclusively with the Plaintiff’s goods. The registered trade mark “CEAT” has become distinctive of the Plaintiff’s goods and in automobile industry has come to be associated solely with the

20 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

Plaintiff’s goods. “CEAT” has been declared by the Registrar of Trade Marks as a well known trade mark on 14^th December, 2020. Prima facie the leading presence of the Plaintiff in the market of tyres and tubes requires no reinforcement. In order to establish case of passing off, it is necessary to demonstrate reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff which has been prima facie demonstrated from the sales figure and the promotional expenses which are produced on record. It is specifically pleaded that the Plaintiff’s products are sold all over India. For considering an action for passing off, as leave under Clause XIV of Letters Patent is granted, this Court will have jurisdiction and it is not necessary that the infringing goods should be sold within jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiff’s mark has prima facie acquired a distinctive character and the consumers identify the mark exclusively with the Plaintiff’s goods. By unauthorized use of deceptively similar mark in pirated artistic work there is likelihood of confusion being caused amongst the public associating the Defendant’s goods with that of the Plaintiff and likelihood of damage to the business, goodwill and reputation. There is no explanation tendered by the Defendants for use of deceptively similar mark in pirated artwork which will prima facie lead to the conclusion that the Defendant is attempting to pass off its goods as that of Plaintiff.

¶158

33. Upon prima facie comparison of the rival marks, it appears

21 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

that the Defendant has come as close as possible to the Plaintiff’s mark so as to pass off his goods as that of the Plaintiff. There is no substance in the submission of Mr. Trivedi, that the mark ‘CAT’ is not similar to that of the Plaintiff’s mark or that the Defendant is dealing in tubes whereas Plaintiff is dealing in tyres. The registrations on record prima facie discloses registration in respect of tyres as well as inner tubes for vehicles.

¶163

34. As far as the decision in the case of Torrent Laboratories Ltd vs. Ciba-Geigy Ltd. , (supra) relied upon by Mr. Trivedi is concerned the Gujrat High Court has reiterated the well settled anti dissection principle and had considered the mark together as a whole. There is no quarrel with the said proposition and infact in the present case upon comparison of the mark as a whole there is overall deceptive similarity prima facie established.

¶164

35. As regards the decision in the case of F. Hoffmann-La Roche & Co., Ltd vs. Geoffrey Manners & Co. Pvt. Ltd . (supra), it was held that the word Dropovit is not descriptive word and it must be held to be an invented word and was entitled to be registered. The said decision infact assists the case of the Plaintiff as it is not shown that the word ‘CEAT’ is a common English dictionary word.

¶165

36. Similarly in the decision of Cadila Health Care Ltd. vs.

22 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd^9, (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has set out the test to be applied in an action for passing off for deciding the question of deceptive similarity. Applying the said test to the present case the resemblance between the rival marks are prima facie evident and there is similarity of the rival marks and identity of the goods which is likely to cause confusion.

¶170

37. In light of the above discussion, the Plaintiff has made out prima facie case for grant of injunction in terms of prayer clause (a), (b), (c). Considering the reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff in the market of tyres and tubes and the fact that the mark has been declared as well known mark, the refusal of an injunction would cause irreparable harm, loss and prejudice to the Plaintiff. Being the prior user of the mark and the label since the 1961, balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff. Affidavit-in-reply is completely silent as to when the mark was adopted by the Defendant. As far as the passing off action is concerned the Plaintiff has not only Pan-India presence but also global presence and therefore the goodwill and reputation has been prima faci e established.

¶171

38. In light of the above, the Interim Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), (b), and (c) which reads as under.

¶172

“(a) pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit, the Defendants by themselves, their

¶173

9 (2001) 5 Supreme Court Cases 73

¶174

Shubham 23 of 25

¶175

IA-4131-2025.doc

¶176

proprietor/partners, servants, agents, stockists, distributors, assignees and all those connected with the Defendants in their business be restrained by an order and temporary injunction of this Hon’ble Court from manufacturing, marketing, distributing, packaging, selling or using in any manner whatsoever, in relation to their two wheeler automotive tyre tubes, tyres or other like goods used in the automobile industry, the impugned marks CREATA and CATE and CAT or any mark identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trade mark CEAT, so as to infringe upon the Plaintiff’s aforesaid trade mark CEAT registered under Nos. 204251, 466079, 605276, 4270896, 4270895, 4400622, 3573642 and 1678126; all in class 12;

¶177

(b) pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit, the Defendants by themselves, their proprietor/partners, servants, agents, stockists, distributors, assignees and all those connected with the Defendants in their business be restrained by an order and temporary injunction of this Hon’ble Court from manufacturing, marketing, distributing, packaging, selling or using in any manner whatsoever, in relation to their two wheeler automotive tyre tubes, tyres or other like goods used in the automobile industry, the impugned pirated artworks of CREATA and CATE and CAT (appended at Exhibit T to the plaint) or any other artworks which are identical with and/or are substantially/strikingly similar to the Plaintiff’s original artistic works of depicted on its CEAT label (appended at Exhibit D to the plaint) and on the two CEAT tyre tube packaging (appended at Exhibits L and N to the plaint), so as to infringe upon the Plaintiff’s copyrights registered under Nos. A-89640/2011 dated 10.01.2011, A-124642/2018 dated 10.04.2018 and the Plaintiff’s subsisting copyright in the Plaintiff’s original artistic work depicted on its CEAT tyre tube packaging as aforementioned;

¶178

(c) pending the hearing and final disposal of this suit, the Defendants by themselves, their proprietor/partners, servants, agents, stockists, distributors, assignees and all those connected with the Defendants in their business be restrained by an order and temporary injunction of this Hon’ble Court from

24 of 25

Shubham

IA-4131-2025.doc

manufacturing, marketing, distributing, packaging, selling or using in any manner whatsoever, in relation to their two wheeler tyre tubes, tyres or other like goods used in the automobile industry, the impugned marks CREATA and CATE and CAT and the impugned trade dress or any mark or trade dress identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s distinctive and prior used trade mark and trade dress of CEAT, so as to pass off their goods and business as and for those of the Plaintiff or in some way connected or associated therewith;”

¶183

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

¶184

25 of 25

¶185

Shubham

Ceat Limited v. Ramu Kushwha

Case brief

What is this about?

Ceat Limited v. Ramu Kushwha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland Gmbh vs Scott-Edil Pharmacia Ltd.

Phonographic Performance Limited vs Apollo Shopping Mall LLP

Asian Paints Limited vs Lalith Choudhary

Thorat Wine Mart vs Surekha Ravindra Thorat

Vikram Tea Processors Pvt. Ltd. vs Nutan tea company

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs Darja Ram Juha Ram