Dismissed

Vyom Foodcraft Private Limited v. Vyam Food Craft India Private Limited

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2024CMA/859/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal dismissed. The High Court upheld the Commercial Court's finding that the trademarks 'Brown Sugar' and 'Green Sugar' are not deceptively similar. Noting the disparity in business scale (14-15 outlets vs. one outlet), the Court held the appellant is not suffering irreparable loss and the appeal lacks force.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed with no other relief granted.

Vyom Foodcraft Private Limited Vs Vyam Food Craft… — Intellectual Property | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 859/2022

¶3

Vyom Foodcraft Private Limited, Through Its Director, Mr Vishal Jhalani, 11-A/b Champa Devi Tower, Jyotiba Fhule Road, Near Mangal Manch, Nandpuri, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302006.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Vyam Food Craft India Private Limited, Through Director Mohammad Haroon Khan, A-99, Laxmi Naraynpuri Anpurna Ki Bagichi, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302003.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Nandini Bhown For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Gharana with Ms. Jyoti Gupta

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶10

Order

¶11

22/08/2024

¶12

Appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by order dated 09.02.2022 passed by Commercial Court No.1, Jaipur, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure was partly allowed.

¶13

Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant filed a civil suit and along with that moved an application for restraining the respondent/defendant from using deceptively similar trademark. The appellant is using trademark “Brown Sugar” whereas, respondent is using the name “G reen Sugar” . The Commercial Court came to the conclusion that the names “Brown Sugar” and “G reen Sugar” are not deceptively similar.

¶14

(2 of 3) [CMA-859/2022]

¶15

However, to safeguard the interest of the appellant, respondent was directed to maintain proper accounts and submit the same quarterly before the Court, so that in case the appellant succeeds in the suit, they can be compensated.

¶16

It is contended by counsel for the appellant that names “Brown Sugar” and “G reen Sugar” are deceptively similar. The respondent company’s director was earlier a partner in the appellant’s company and after leaving the company, they found another company with deceptively similar name and also started the same work of confectionery items. It is also contended that the appellant-company is using the trademark “Brown Sugar” and respondent started using the name “G reen Sugar”, as a result of which, appellant’s reputation is at stake and is also adversely affecting their business.

¶17

Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon Laxmikant Vs. Patel vs Chetanbhar Shah & Ors.: AIR 2002 SC 275 ; the judgment of Delhi High Court Radico Khaitan Ltd. Vs. Vintage Distillers Ltd.: CS(COMM) 441/2020 decided on 12.10.2020 and the judgment of Bombay High Court Sapat International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Girnar Food and Beverages Pvt. Ltd .: 2016(2) BOM CR 360 decided on 06.01.2016.

¶18

Counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal. It is contended that the name “G reen Sugar” is not similar to “Brown Sugar” and “G reen Sugar” was started in the year 2017. It is also contended that “G reen Sugar” is having one outlet whereas, “Brown Sugar” is having 14-15 outlets, thus, it cannot be said that running business in the name of “G reen Sugar” is in any way affecting the business of the appellant who is running business in

¶19

[CMA-859/2022]

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

the trademark of “Brown Sugar” . It is further contended that the impugned order was passed on 09.02.2022 and a period of more than two and a half years have lapsed but, the appellant is not proceeding with the suit. Respondent is submitting the quarterly returns of their business as per directions of the Court, so that in case appellant succeeds in suit, they can be compensated in terms of money.

¶22

We have considered the contentions.

¶23

The Commercial Court has come to the conclusion that the names “Brown Sugar” and “G reen Sugar” are not deceptively similar. The Court has also come to the conclusion that irreparable loss would not be caused to the appellant as they can be compensated in terms of money.

¶24

We are of the considered view that “Brown Sugar” is having 14-15 outlets whereas, “G reen Sugar” which came into existence in the year 2017, is still having one outlet, therefore, it cannot be said that in any way respondent-company is affecting the business of the appellant-company. In any case, the learned Commercial Court has protected the rights of the appellant and if they succeed, they will be entitled to recover the losses from the respondent- company, hence, we do not find any force in the present appeal and the same deserves to be and is accordingly, dismissed.

¶25

Any observation made by this Court will not have any effect on the decision of the suit.

¶26

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶27

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶28

HEENA/38

Vyom Foodcraft Private Limited v. Vyam Food Craft India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vyom Foodcraft Private Limited v. Vyam Food Craft India Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Manoj Agrawal Son of Shri Shyam Sundar Agrawal, Vs M/S J.K.D. Pearl India Developers Pvt.Ltd.

Madan Singh S/O Shri Devi Singh Rajput Vs Deputy Commissioner, Income Tax (Benami Transaction)

Dinesh Gautam Son of Shri Inderlal Sharma Vs the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan

Smt. Santosh Devi Sharma Wife of Shri Nirmal Kumar Sharma, Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

The State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Usha Sharma Wife of Late Shri Suresh Chand Sharma

Rakesh Yadav S/O Shri Lekhram Yadav Vs the Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court