Allowed

Compton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. Tower 3, 1ST Floor, East Wing, Lbs Marg, Kurla (Est), Mum v. Ramesh Kumar M/S Aggarwal Iron Store of Chopta Bazaar, Hansi, Hissar, Haryana

Delhi HC24 May 2024C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM)/370/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rectification petition seeking removal of a device mark incorporating 'CROMPTON' registered for paints in Class 2. With no reply from the respondent and the petitioner's mark declared well-known, the court found likelihood of confusion acute and directed removal of the impugned mark from the Register.

What did the court decide?

Impugned mark ordered removed from Register of Trade Marks; Registrar's website to be updated within four weeks.

Compton Greaves Consumer Electricals Ltd. Tower 3, 1ST… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 370/2022

¶4

CROMPTON GREAVES CONSUMER ELECTRICAL LTD.

¶5

..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Hemant Daswani, Ms. Saumya Bajpai and Ms. Pranjal, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

RAMESH KUMAR M/S AGGARWAL IRON STORE & ANR

..... Respondents

Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

¶12

This rectification petition is filed seeking removal of respondent no.1’s

¶13

mark ‘CROMPTON’ as part of the device mark registered under No.3353089 in Class 2 with effect from 04^th September, 2016 for the category of goods i.e. paints, distemper, varnishes, lacquers and similar goods.

¶14

This petition had been originally filed before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“ IPAB ”) and has since been transferred to this Court post the abolition of the IPAB in 2021. Notices had been issued, counsel for respondent no.1 had appeared and sought multiple opportunities to file

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2024 at 11:40:46

¶17

replies. However, reply was not filed and the final right to reply was closed by the order of this Court dated 08^th August, 2023. Thereafter, an adjournment was sought by counsel for respondent no.1 on 30^th November, 2023. The matter was again adjourned on 29^th February, 2024 on joint request. Today, the matter has come up after a passover was sought on behalf of counsel, however, no one has appeared after the passover. Considering it’s an old matter and there is no reply on behalf of respondent no.1, the Court is inclined to take up the said matter.

¶18

The history of petitioner’s adoption of the mark goes back to Col. Crompton, who was a British Engineer and was invited by the Government of India to draft the first piece of legislation governing the generation of electricity which became the Bengal Act IX of 1896. Under Col. Crompton, various installations for generation of electricity were set up in the late 19^th Century. Thereafter, Col. Crompton was extensively evolved in various infrastructural initiatives in pre-independence India, the facts of which are noted in paras 2 – 9 of the petition.

¶19

What is relevant for this petition is that in the year 1966, a joint venture company, Greaves Cotton and Crompton Parkinson Limited, amalgamated with Crompton Parkinson Works Limited, to give rise to a new Company called as ‘ Crompton Greaves Limited ’. From 01^st January, 2016, the mark ‘CROMPTON’ was retained by Crompton Greaves Limited, being the successor-in-title of Crompton Greaves Limited and Crompton Parkinson Works Limited. Petitioner herein is a subsequent demerged company of Crompton Greaves Limited.

¶20

The trademark ‘CROMPTON’ in various formations has been registered in favour of petitioner and is tabulated as under:

¶21

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2024 at 11:40:46

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶24

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2024 at 11:40:46

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2024 at 11:40:46

¶27

Subsequently, the trademark ‘CROMPTON’ has been made part of the list of the well-known trademarks by the Trade Mark Registry by No.790088 on 24^th February, 2020.

¶28

The grievance is against the use of petitioner’s mark as part of the impugned device which, as per petitioner’s counsel, uses the device of another reputed company, ‘Asian Paints’ along with the wordmark ‘CROMPTON’. Petitioner’s counsel, therefore, states that this is a dishonest adoption by respondent no.1.

¶29

As part of the accompanying the petition, various documents have been filed to support their continuous user of the mark ‘CROMPTON’ which are inter alia as under:

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2024 at 11:40:46

¶32

(i) Copy of the certificates issued by the Chartered Accountant for sales figures under the ‘CROMPTON’ mark.

¶33

(ii) Copy of invoices for sale of the products under the trade name ‘CROMPTON’.

¶34

(iii) Copy of advertisements from newspapers, hoardings, sales and promotional materials and use of the trademark ‘CROMPTON’ in various products such as coolers, tube lights, electrical equipment etc.

¶35

(iv) A list of various opposition proceedings initiated by petitioner for rectification of similar or deceptively similar marks.

¶36

(v) Order by the IPAB dated 26^th October, 2012 in favour of petitioner directing rectification of the mark ‘CROMPTON SUPER’ which was registered in Class 7.

¶37

Counsel for petitioner also places reliance on Daimler Benz Aktiegesselschaft and Anr. v. Hydo Hindustan , 1993 SCC OnLine Del 605; Caterpillar Inc. v. Mehtab Ahmed & Ors. , 2002 SCC OnLine Del 865 and Honda Motors Co. Ltd. v. Charanjit Singh & Ors. , 2002 SCC OnLine Del 1332.

¶38

Further, counsel for petitioner for the purpose of disclosure, states that a Civil Suit being CS/33/2019, was filed by them against respondent no.1 in Hissar District Court, where an ex parte ad interim injunction was granted on 29th March, 2019. However, the suit was dismissed in default due to Covid Pandemic on 26th February, 2021. Further, petitioner had already filed a restoration appeal which is listed on 2nd July, 2024 before the Hissar District Court.

¶39

In view of the above, the petition deserves to be allowed. The fact that

¶40

This is a digitally signed order.

¶41

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 29/05/2024 at 11:40:46

¶42

the impugned registration is in Class 2 for ‘paints’, may not be relevant for the following reasons:

¶43

(i) That petitioner’s mark has been declared as a well-known trademark.

¶44

(ii) The averments of petitioner in their petition are unrebutted for lack of reply by defendant.

¶45

Considering that the mark is identical, the likelihood of confusion is acute in this regard, as also that the protection to the petitioner’s mark is across classes being declared a well-known mark.

¶46

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. It is directed that the impugned mark be removed from the Register of Trade and the website of respondent no. 2 ( Registrar of Trademarks ) , shall be updated accordingly.

¶47