In a recent case before the Delhi High Court, AB Mauri India Private Limited, a company involved in manufacturing and supply of baking ingredients (Plaintiff) disputed the use of the trademark “TOWER” by the Defendants Vicky Aggarwal and Others. The suit was in relation to the manufacturing and selling of dry fruits including cashew nuts, almonds, walnuts, and pistachios. In 2013, the Plaintiff sent a legal notice to the Defendant in an effort to protect the Plaintiff’s rights over their trademark “TOWER” and to restrict the Defendant’s use of the trademark to goods under Class 01. The Defendants responded with an undertaking, wherein they agreed that they would not produce “goods or goods falling under classes of interest to the Plaintiff” and to restrict the use of their marks to goods such as “MSG, citric acid, tartaric acid, green raisins, camphor and hexamine tablets” that fall under Classes 01 and 29.
Subsequently however, the Defendants continued to obtain registration of the trademark “TOWER” and its variants for goods falling under classes 01, 29 and 30. Thus, the Plaintiff initiated legal proceedings against the Defendant for violating their undertaking to refrain from expanding to goods and classes of interest to the Plaintiff. In defence, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff produced ‘additives for bakery products’ used by bakers, whereas the Defendants produced products that were directly consumed by the end customers. Further, the Defendant argued that “dry fruits” are not Bakery products and hence do not fall under the scope of goods of interest to the Plaintiff. The Defendant therefore claimed that since the nature of goods and trade channels employed by the parties were different, there is no likelihood of confusion in the minds of the consumers.
In consonance with the Plaintiff’s contention, the Court stated that the Defendant cannot determine the ambit of what constitutes as “goods of interest to the Plaintiff”. The Court further observed that the Defendant had emphatically agreed to restrict the use of their mark “TOWER” to goods falling under Classes 01 and 29, and hence cannot be allowed to use the mark “TOWER” for Dry fruits. Further, the Court stated that a consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection would misunderstand the source of the goods sold by the Plaintiff and the Defendant under the trademark “TOWER”.
Considering the above observations, the Court allowed an interlocutory injunction against the Defendants to restrict their use of the mark “TOWER” to manufacture and sell dry fruits, including but not limited to pistachios, walnut, cashew nuts and almonds.
Citation: Ab Mauri India Private Limited vs Vicky Aggarwal & Ors. (CS(COMM) 810/2022)
Authored by Ms. Swathi M, Trademark Team, BananaIP Counsels.
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
