The Delhi Tis Hazari Court in a recent Trademark infringement matter between Century Plyboards Limited (“Plaintiff” or “Century Ply”) and M/s. Shree Balaji Ply Center (“Defendant” or “Balaji Ply”) denied granting any relief to the Plaintiff after the court found that the Plaintiff was unable to establish any Trademark infringement and that the entire allegation was based on hearsay evidence.
Century Ply instituted a suit against Balaji Ply seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain Balaji Ply from infringing the Plaintiff’s trademark and copyright in the marks CENTURY / CENTURYPLY / SAINIK. The Plaintiff, who is a leading manufacturer and trader of ‘Plywood Products, Block Boards, Laminates, laminated Sheets, Decorative Plywood, Decorative Laminates, Veneer, Particle Boards, and Partition Doors’ claimed that it received complaints from various quarters and particularly from its customers that inferior quality plywood products bearing the identical trademark CENTURY / CENTURYPLY / SAINIK were being sold in different outlets within territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi Court.
The Plaintiff alleged that in June 2020, it learned from reliable sources that the Defendant, in connivance with other traders, was manufacturing/marketing inferior quality Plywood Products, Block Boards under the mark CENTURY to draw illegal benefit from the reputation of Plaintiff’s mark. The Defendant denied the Plaintiff’s allegations and argued that they were traders of Concrete, Assam Cherry, MDF Plyboard, and other allied goods. The Defendant also stated they had never used or sold any products with the mark CENTURY / CENTURYPLY / SAINIK and that they had no concern with these marks.
The Court observed that the Plaintiff was provided with several opportunities for submitting evidence, but the Plaintiff did not lead any evidence despite the same. Furthermore, the Plaintiff sought several adjournments unable to produce a witness for cross-examination.
On holistic examination of the plaint, the court noted that the Plaintiff had not placed any credible material regarding the Defendant’s use of the mark SAINIK in relation to plywood. While the Plaintiff claimed that it had received complaints from various quarters, especially from its customers that inferior quality of plywood products with the mark CENTURY / CENTURYPLY / SAINIK were being sold in the market, it was unable to produce any written complaint of any customer pertaining to purchase of any plywood containing the said marks.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not disclose the sources from where it acquired knowledge of infringement of its trademark and passing off, and neither did they examine any such person to prove that the Defendant was manufacturing/marketing plywood products with the mark of the Plaintiff. The entire evidence of the Plaintiff Witness was hearsay and the Witness had no personal knowledge of infringement of trademark of the plaintiff or passing off.
In view of the above, the Court dismissed the suit and awarded the costs of defending the suit to the Defendant.
Citation: M/s Century Plyboards (I) Ltd. v. M/s Shree Balaji Ply Center, CS (Comm.) No. 1000/2020, Tis Hazari District Court (Delhi), Decided on 7th August 2024. Available on https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9183110/
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, 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.
