Partly allowed

Malhotra Surgical Industries v. Dharam Pal Singh Bhatia & Anr.

Delhi HC11 Nov 2024CS(COMM)/505/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court decreed a suit filed by Malhotra Surgical Industries restraining defendants from using the 'MICROTONE' trademark. After defendants violated prior orders by continuing sales, the court directed payment of costs and granted a permanent injunction while allowing use of their original marks.

What did the court decide?

Suit decreed for permanent injunction; defendants to pay ₹1,00,000 each in costs; defendants allowed to continue business under original marks excluding 'MICROTONE'.

Malhotra Surgical Industries Vs Dharam Pal Singh Bhatia… — Intellectual Property | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~30

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- CS(COMM) 505/2024 & I.A. 31384/2024, I.A. 31385/2024, I.A. 38553/2024, I.A. 43687/2024

¶4

MALHOTRA SURGICAL INDUSTRIES .....Plaintiff Through: Mr. Nitin Sharma, Ms. Surabhi Pande and Mr. Rajit Ghosh, Advocates Mob: 8527486543

¶5

versus

¶6

DHARAM PAL SINGH BHATIA & ANR. .....Defendants Through: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate Mob: 9810438450

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

% 11.11.2024

¶10

The present suit has been filed seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark

¶11

‘MICROTONE STETHOSCOPE’/ , or any other deceptively

¶12

similar mark in relation to any surgical equipment or any other products, resulting in infringement of plaintiff’s registered trademark.

¶13

As per the case canvassed on behalf of the plaintiff, the facts are as follows: 2.1 The present suit has been instituted against the unauthorised, unscrupulous, and illegal use of an identical mark ‘MICROTONE

¶14

STETHOSCOPE’/ , by defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 in relation to identical products, viz. surgical equipment and medical apparatus, resulting in infringement of plaintiff’s registered

¶15

CS(COMM) 505/2024 Page 1 of 13

¶16

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 18/11/2024 at 12:18:22

¶17

trademark/logo/label MICRO TONE STETHOSCOPE I MICROTONE

¶18

STETHOSCOPE .

¶19

2.2 Plaintiff is a reputed Indian surgical equipment manufacturer and is engaged in the business of trading, marketing, promoting, sale, retail of surgical and medical devices, instruments, and apparatus under its registered trademark MICRO TONE STETHOSCOPE/ MICRO-TONE STETHOSCOPE

¶20

2.3 In the course of trade and business, the plaintiff has also adopted an email ID [email protected] for interacting and corresponding with the business and trade and the said email-id features on almost all products of the plaintiff.

¶21

2.4 Ever since then, the packaging of the plaintiff's product 'MICROTONE STETHOSCOPE' has undergone several aesthetic changes and formative variations and the plaintiff has adopted different packaging in relation to its said goods while retaining MICRO-TONE as its most prominent and essential feature. The plaintiff's said goods bearing the said trademark/logo/label are being displayed, solicited, advertised and sold extensively through various third party interactive websites, namely, www.amazon.in, and www.flipkart.com.

¶22

2.5 The plaintiff in order to protect its intellectual property rights has obtained statutory protection over its said trademarks/logo/label in the relevant class. The details of the plaintiff's registrations and trademark applications for the said trademark/logo/device, are as follows:

¶23

CS(COMM) 505/2024 Page 2 of 13

¶24

¶25

2.6 The plaintiff has been using the said trademarks/labels in an artistic

¶26

way, comprising MICRO TONE STETHOSCOPE/ MICRO–TONE

¶27

CS(COMM) 505/2024 Page 3 of 13

¶28

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

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/11/2024 at 12:18:22

¶31

STETHOSCOPE, as also the placement of the artistic features, writing style, font etc. involved therein.

¶32

2.7 The plaintiff possesses copyright registration for 'MICRO-TONE WITH DEVICE OF DOCTORS, NURSES, MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS & LOGO' since 2009 bearing Registration No. A-85886/2009 . The art work involved in the plaintiff's said trademarks/logo/label are original artistic works and the plaintiff is the owner and proprietor of the said copyright therein within the meaning of the Indian Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff has been dealing with its said art works/copyright in the course of trade in relation to its said goods and business, inter alia, within the meaning of Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957.

¶33

2.8 The trademark/logo/label of the plaintiff, MICROTONE being a coined trademark/logo/label enjoys inherent distinctiveness indicating trade origin and source of the goods bearing the said trademark/logo/label of the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the plaintiff's trade mark guaranteed with regard to its said trademark/logo/label has acquired formidable goodwill, reputation and distinctiveness vis-à-vis such goods.

¶34

2.9 The plaintiff has remained actively engaged in promoting and marketing their goods under the trademark/logo/label MICRO TONE STETHOSCOPE/ MICRO TONE STETHOSCOPE

¶35

. The plaintiff in order to expand its market reach has engaged in various branding activities and promotional events, both independently as well as along with their trusted dealers. Additionally, the

¶36

CS(COMM) 505/2024 Page 4 of 13

¶37

¶38

plaintiff's dealers have represented them at various trade fairs, exhibitions and conferences, showcasing the range of goods associated with the said trademark/logo/label. This level of active promotion and consistent participation in various marketing activities indicates a strong effort to establish and maintain a presence in the market with regard to products bearing the said trademark/logo/label including but not limited to MICRO TONE STETHOSCOPE, MICRO - TONE STETHOSCOPE,

¶39

2.10 On account of such long, continuous, uninterrupted, exclusive use and impeccable quality control, the plaintiff's trademark/logo/label in relation to the said goods have acquired enviable goodwill and reputation amongst the members of trade and public at large and is therefore, entitled to be accorded statutory protection against any form of misappropriation and dilution of distinctiveness by any third party, irrespective of nature of goods or business. The plaintiff, therefore, has the exclusive right to use the said trademark/logo/label and ought to be protected against imitation, confusion, deception, dilution and unfair competition by competitors in trade.

¶40

2.11 As per the information available on the internet, the plaintiff came across multiple listings on the e-commerce platforms, namely, www.amazon.in, www.1mg.com, www.vmed.in, whereby, the plaintiff was shocked to learn that the defendant no. 1 has dishonestly adopted the

¶41

impugned mark 'MICROTONE STETHOSCOPE'/ identical to that of the plaintiff's said trademark/logo/label as its product

¶42

CS(COMM) 505/2024 Page 5 of 13

¶43

¶44

name, with defendant no. 1 's trading entity, M/s Surgical Enterprises being the manufacturer.

¶45

2.12 The defendant no. 2, Mr. Kamaljeet Singh Bhatia, trading as M/s JAS Enterprise, is also engaged in the identical business of manufacturing, marketing and selling of surgical equipment and medical apparatus and has in due course adopted the said impugned mark 'MICROTONE

¶46

STETHOSCOPE'/ . To the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, Mr. Kamaljeet Singh is the sole proprietor of defendant no. 2 and happens to be the elder brother of defendant no. 1.

¶47

2.13 The defendants being real brothers are dependent on each other in trade and business and are acting in collusion with each other and that the infringing trademark 'MICROTONE

¶48

STETHOSCOPE'/ is being used by the defendants in collusion and connivance. The infringing impugned trademark

¶49

'MICROTONE STETHOSCOPE'/ happens to be visually, phonetically and structurally identical to the plaintiff's prior, established, registered, reputed and well recognized trademark/logo/label, i.e., MICRO TONE STETHOSCOPE/ MICRO - TONE STETHOSCOPE,

¶50

in relation to the identical business. The rival trademarks are identical and deliberate imitation to that of the plaintiff's registered trade mark. The defendants' impugned adoption and user thereof,

¶51

CS(COMM) 505/2024 Page 6 of 13

¶52

¶53

is tainted at inception and is a pirate use of the plaintiff's said trademark/logo/label.

¶54

2.14 The defendants have adopted and started using the impugned trademark 'MICROTONE STETHOSCOPE' /

¶55

dishonestly, fraudulently, and out of positive greed with a view to take advantage of and trade upon the established goodwill, reputation, and proprietary rights of the plaintiff in the plaintiff's trademark MICROTONE STETHOSCOPE/ MICRO-TONE STETHOSCOPE

¶56

. The dishonesty of the defendants are further apparent from the fact that the defendants were one of the primary retailers/wholesalers of the plaintiff's goods, specifically surgical goods and medical equipment, under the trademark/logo/label MICRO TONE STETHOSCOPE/ MICRO-TONE STETHOSCOPE

¶57

from 2011, until the first quarter of 2019. The said factual matrix clearly demonstrates that the defendants had prior knowledge of the plaintiff's trademark and its associated market value. Hence, the impugned use of the mark 'MICROTONE STETHOSCOPE' /

¶58

is particulary egregious and indicative of deliberate infringement of the plaintiff’s said trademark/logo/label.

¶59

2.15 Thus, the present suit has come to be filed.

¶60

When the present suit was listed for hearing on 1^st October, 2024, it

¶61

CS(COMM) 505/2024 Page 7 of 13

¶62

¶63

was recorded that defendant no. 1 has filed an affidavit, wherein, it had undertaken not to sell, promote or distribute the impugned goods under the variant ‘MICROTONE’.

¶64

The affidavit dated 24^th September, 2024, was filed by defendant no. 1, reads as under:

¶65

“xxx xxx xxx

¶66

6. However, to end the dispute and focus on my business and family matters, I hereby undertake not to sell, promote or distribute the impugned goods under the variant MICROTONE as submitted by me on 31.05.2024. I further undertake not to sell, promote or distribute the impugned goods under the trademark MEDIGOLD MICROTONE as impugned in the case by the plaintiff.

¶67

7. That I say that is my registered trademark and I will continue to use the same without the word/mark/logo MICROTONE with other variants as mentioned above.

¶68

8. That I say that I am complying with the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court. I have neither procured nor sold any product bearing the trademark MEDIGOLD MICROTONE since 31.05.2024. I have not listed any product bearing the trademark MEDIGOLD MICROTONE for sale on any e-commerce web-site after passing of the order dated 31.05.2024.

¶69

9. The impugned product shown on certain e-commerce website as mentioned in plaintiff’s application bearing I.A No. 38553/2024 may have been listed by third party who purchased the same from me or from my purchasers prior to 31.05.2024. One such listing shown in the application is of the product with trademark MICROTONE. I have never used the word/mark MICROTONE in isolation.

¶70

10. I have written email to the e-commerce web-sites for not listing any product under the trademark MEDIGOLD MICROTONE at the instance of any party as the same will amount to violation of order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CS(COMM) 505/2024.

¶71

xxx xxx xxx”

¶72

It was further recorded by this Court in the order dated 01^st October, 2024, that defendant no. 1 had also written to the various e-commerce websites requesting them to take down the listing of the infringing products

¶73

CS(COMM) 505/2024 Page 8 of 13

¶74

¶75

marketed by the defendants.

¶76

6. The order dated 1^st October, 2024, reads as under:

¶77

“1. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the defendant no. 1, wherein, the defendant no. 1 has undertaken not to sell, promote or distribute the impugned goods under the variant ‘MICROTONE’.

¶78

2. Learned counsel appearing for the defendant no. 1 also points out to this Court, the letter dated 23rd September, 2024, that has been written by the defendant to the various social media sites, viz. Flipkart, Amazon, Meesho, and [email protected], wherein, the products under the trademark ‘MICROTONE’ are being sold by the defendant. By referring to the said letter, it is submitted that the defendant no.1 is not selling the infringing product and has already requested the various intermediaries to take down the listings of the infringing products.

¶79

3. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that despite the letter by the defendant no. 1 and the order passed by this Court, the impugned products are still available online.

¶80

4. Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to file an affidavit giving the details of the listings, where the infringing products of the defendant, are available.

¶81

5. Let an affidavit in that regard be filed by the plaintiff within a period of ten days, from today.

¶82

6. The defendant no. 1 is also directed to file an affidavit to bring on record the name and details of the distributors, to whom the infringing products have been sold by the defendant no. 1. Let the said affidavit be filed by the defendant no. 1 within a period of ten days, from today.

¶83

7. Since the affidavit undertaking not to sell the infringing product of the plaintiff, has been filed only on behalf of defendant no. 1, learned counsel appearing for the defendants is directed to file the requisite affidavit with respect to giving an undertaking as given by defendant no. 1, by defendant no. 2 as well.

¶84

8. Let the said affidavit be filed by defendant no. 2 within a period of ten days, from today.

¶85

9. This Court is of the view that if the requisite affidavits are filed by the respective parties, then appropriate directions can be passed by the Court and the suit can be closed accordingly.

¶86

CS(COMM) 505/2024 Page 9 of 13

¶87

¶88

10. Re-notify on 23^rd October, 2024.”

¶89

Subsequently, in compliance of the directions to disclose the name and details of the distributors/retailers, vide order dated 1st October, 2024, an affidavit dated 11^th October, 2024, has been filed by defendant no. 1, relevant portion of which, reads as under:

¶90

“xxx xxx xxx

¶91

4. That the name and details of distributors/retailer to whom I sold the products bearing the trademark MEDIGOLD MICROTONE are as under:

¶92

(i) Sri Umraji Surgical and Vaccine, Malao Bhawan, Gandhi Park, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh- 273001

¶93

(ii) Matushree Pharma, 9 1st Floor Near Padam Complex, S D M Lane Manverthpet, Bangalore- 560053

¶94

(iii) Hemant Surgical Co. Madras, 62 (Old 33), Nyniappa Naicken, Street (1^st Floor), Madras- 3

¶95

Invoices issued to them are filed herewith

¶96

5. That neither I am procuring the product (Stethoscope) under the trademark MEDIGOLD MICROTONE nor the same are available with me or any of the said distributors/retailers.

¶97

xxx xxx xxx”

¶98

th 8. On similar lines, an affidavit dated 5 November, 2024 has been filed

¶99

by defendant no. 2, relevant portion of which, reads as under:

¶100

“xxx xxx xxx

¶101

2. That I adopted the trademark in relation to surgical products and medical instruments including Stethoscope on 07.03.2023. I recently started MICROTONE variant for my product Stethoscope under the said trademark MEDCHECK. Earlier, I was selling Stetoscope bearing the trademark MEDIGOLD and its variants including MICROTONE of my brother defendant no. 1 in the suit. I had been procuring/getting manufactured the impugned product namely Stethoscope from S.S Surgical.Co., 8/56, Geeta Colony, Delhi110031.

¶102

3…………

¶103

4. However, in order to end the present litigation, I hereby

¶104

CS(COMM) 505/2024 Page 10 of 13

¶105

¶106

undertake not to procure, sell, promote and/or distribute the impugned goods under the variant MICROTONE. I further undertake not to procure, sell, promote and/or distribute the impugned goods under the trademark MEDCHECK MICROTONE as impugned in the case by the plaintiff. However, I will continue to use my trademark MEDCHECK without the word/mark/logo MICROTONE.

¶107

5. That I say that I am complying with the order passed by this Hon'ble Court. I have neither procured, nor sold nor listed any product bearing the trademark MEDCHECK MICROTONE for sale on any e-commerce web-site after coming to know of the order dated 31.05 .2024. No stock of infringing product is available with me.

¶108

xxx xxx xxx”

¶109

Though, the aforesaid affidavits were filed by the defendants, wherein, they had undertaken not to procure, sell, promote and/or distribute the goods under the variant ‘MICROTONE’, however, the plaintiff submitted that the defendants had not disclosed the names of all the distributors/dealers with whom the defendants had business. Accordingly, this court vide order dated 28^th October, 2024, had directed as follows:

¶110

“xxx xxx xxx

¶111

1. Affidavit of compliance has been filed on behalf of the defendants pursuant to the order dated 1st October, 2024.

¶112

2. However, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has drawn the attention of this Court to the said affidavit to submit that only three distributors have been disclosed in the said affidavit.

¶113

3. He submits that written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendants, wherein, they have listed nine more distributors.

¶114

4. Though, written statement is stated to have been filed and served upon learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff, the same is not before this Court.

¶115

5. However, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff has relied upon the said written statement and has further drawn the attention of this Court to the invoices issued by the defendants for the sale of their products dated 7^th June, 2024 and 14^th June, 2024.

¶116

6. It is submitted that the undertaking on behalf of the defendants was recorded vide order dated 31^st May, 2024. Therefore, any sale by the defendants after 31^st May, 2024, is in violation of the order passed by this Court.

¶117

CS(COMM) 505/2024 Page 11 of 13

¶118

¶119

7. Responding to the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for the defendants submits that affidavit of undertaking was filed by the defendants on 24^th September, 2024 and that there has been no sale by the defendants after the said date.

¶120

8. He further extends unconditional apology and submits that the sale by the defendants after the undertaking as recorded vide order dated 31^st May, 2024, is inadvertent and that the defendants have not intentionally violated the order passed by this Court.

¶121

9. The apology is accepted by this Court.

¶122

10. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff presses for cost and submits that considering the fact that the defendants have been in violation of the order passed by this Court, the defendants ought to be saddled with cost.

¶123

11. Considering the submissions made before this Court and the fact that the defendants have sold their infringing product, even after the order dated 31^st May, 2024, wherein, the undertaking of defendants is recorded, this Court is of the view that ends of justice shall meet, if cost of ₹ 2,00,000/ - is imposed upon the defendants, i.e., ₹ 1,00,000/ - each.

¶124

12. Considering the submission made before this Court, it is directed that both the defendants shall file a fresh affidavit, bringing forth the correct name of all the distributors, wherein, the infringing products have been supplied.

¶125

13. Let the said affidavits be filed by the defendants within three working days.

¶126

14. Re-notify on 11^th November, 2024.”

¶127

th 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, an affidavit dated 5 November, 2024, has been filed on behalf of defendant no. 1, wherein, the details of the distributors/dealers/retailers have been filed.

¶128

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is satisfied with the affidavit filed on behalf of the defendants. 12. This Court notes that vide order dated 28^th October, 2024, this Court has already opined that considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, ends of justice shall be met, if cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- each is paid by the defendants to the plaintiff.

¶129

Accordingly, considering the undertaking on behalf of the defendants

¶130

CS(COMM) 505/2024 Page 12 of 13

¶131

¶132

that they shall not procure or market or deal with the products under the name ‘MICROTONE’, following directions are issued:

¶133

I. Suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants in terms of Para 63 (a) and (b) of the plaint. II. Cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- each, shall be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff, within a period of two weeks, from today.

¶134

III. The defendant no. 1 is at liberty to continue to do its business under its mark, i.e., MEDIGOLD, in respect of its products.

¶135

IV. Defendant no. 2 is at liberty to continue to do its business under its

¶136

mark .

¶137

Decree sheet be drawn up, in terms of the aforesaid directions.

¶138

The suit, along with the pending applications, stands disposed of.

¶139

The next date of hearing, i.e., 26^th November, 2024, before the learned Joint Registrar, stands cancelled.

¶140

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶141

NOVEMBER 11, 2024 ak

¶142

CS(COMM) 505/2024 Page 13 of 13

¶143

Malhotra Surgical Industries v. Dharam Pal Singh Bhatia & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malhotra Surgical Industries v. Dharam Pal Singh Bhatia & Anr.

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

Taking Industrial Company Limited Vs Navyug Sales Corporation

Appy Pie LLP Vs Engineer.Ai India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Sterlite Technologies Limited Vs Ztt India Private Limited

Arha Media and Broadcasting Private Limited Vs Www.Vcinema.Com & Ors.

Usms Saffron Co. Inc. Vs Gulzar Ahmed Bhat Trading as M/S Gulzar Products and Ors.

Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. Vs Jonas Woodhead and Sons India Limited

Northland Rubber Mills Vs Varun Mahajan & Anr.

Zippo Manufacturing Company Vs Raja Bhai Traders & Anr.

Appy Pie LLP Vs Engineer.Ai India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. Vs Protrition Products LLP & Ors.

Sulakshan Kumra Vs Amarjit Singh and Ors.

Ttk Prestige Ltd. Vs Mr Gurmeet Singh

Aktiebolaget Volvo & Ors. Vs Jonas Woodhead and Sons India Limited

Northland Rubber Mills Vs Varun Mahajan & Anr.