Ghadi Granted Permanent Relief In Trademark And Copyright Infringement Case

Ghadi Granted Permanent Relief in Trademark and Copyright Infringement Case

In a case brought by Ghadi, a detergent manufacturer, under Sections 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, the Delhi District Court granted Ghadi a permanent injunction against the defendant for trademark and copyright infringement. Ghadi had accused the defendant of passing off their products as Ghadi’s, using a deceptive trademark and tagline.

Ghadi, known for its detergent products, holds the registered trademark featuring a clock image on its packaging, which is also protected under the Copyright Act. The defendant, also in the detergent business, was found using a trademark and packaging strikingly similar to Ghadi’s. In 2022, Ghadi discovered the defendant’s products branded with the label “26 White,” which closely resembled Ghadi’s trademark. Additionally, the defendant's tagline, “Hamesha Istemaal Kare Or Kapde Me Chamak Paaye,” mirrored Ghadi's distinctive tagline, “Pahle Istemal Karen Fir Viswash Karen.” In response, Ghadi filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant at the Commercial Court in Karkardooma, Delhi. The Court issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction and appointed a Local Commissioner (LC) to conduct a search and seizure of the infringing products. A substantial quantity of the defendant's products bearing the disputed trademark was seized during the operation.

Despite the defendant’s admission of Ghadi's proprietary rights over the trademark and tagline and their commitment to cease their use, the defendant continued to use the infringing mark. Consequently, Ghadi filed another suit, and the Court once again granted a temporary injunction and ordered further seizure of infringing goods. The LC seized 207 bags and 839 pieces of infringing products, worth approximately Rs. 10,00,000.

The Court found that the defendant had willfully adopted a trademark and packaging similar to Ghadi’s, likely causing confusion among consumers. The Court noted that the defendant's actions amounted to piggybacking on Ghadi's established reputation. The Court also acknowledged Ghadi’s claims regarding the infringement of its tagline, relying on a precedent set in the case of Procter & Gamble Manufacturing (Tianjin) Co. Ltd. v. Anchor Health & Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd., where taglines used repeatedly contributed to a brand's identity.

The defendant did not oppose the LC's report, and the Court observed procedural lapses, including failure to file a proper written statement. As a result, the Court deemed that the case was suitable for summary judgment. It held that there was little chance of the defendant succeeding and ruled in favor of Ghadi, granting a permanent injunction and damages of Rs. 5,00,000, along with costs of Rs. 1,50,000.

The Court's ruling was based on the evidence presented, including the recovery of infringing goods by the LC, as well as the established legal standards for granting damages in intellectual property cases.