FAO(OS) (COMM) 63/2023
Overview of the Case
The Plaintiff-Astral Ltd. is a renowned manufacturing company popularly known for itspipes and other allied products. In the present matter, the Defendant- Ashirvad Pipes Pvt. Ltd was claimed to be infringing the Plaintiff’s registered Trademark “CPVC PRO” to which the Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed the Respondent to undertake amends in the representation of its trademark so as to obviate chances of confusion amongst the consuming public.
Brief Facts of the Case
The Plaintiff company is engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, and selling high-quality pipes, parts, and fittings for use in plumbing, sewage, drainage, fire protection, and the like. In the year 2004, the plaintiff company became the first entity to launch Chlorinated Polyvinyl Chloride (CPVC) piping systems in India. The plaintiff has filed and obtained various registrations in respect of the mark ‘CPVC PRO’ and ‘CPVC PRO’ formative trademarks. On account of its superior quality, continuous and extensive use, and large-scale publicity, the plaintiff’s trademark ‘CPVC PRO’ has acquired an immense reputation and goodwill in the market. Accordingly, the plaintiff claims both statutory as well as common law rights in the trademark ‘CPVC PRO’. The Defendant has also filed various trademark applications in respect of similar products which are pending as of date. The grievance of the plaintiff is with regard to the impugned mark ‘CPVC FLOWPRO’, wherein ‘CPVC’ and ‘PRO’ are being used together and the same is similar to the trademark of the plaintiff, ‘CPVC PRO’. The trademark application of the defendant was filed in January 2021, on a “proposed to be used basis”, whereas the Plaintiff has been using the ‘CPVC PRO’ marks since 2016.
The Impugned Order
Under the Impugned Order dated 03.02.23, the following observations were made:
1. The mark of the Defendant, CPVC FLOWPRO, and the mark of the Plaintiff, CPVC PRO, do not hold any visually, structurally, phonetically, or conceptually similar elements. Hence, the test of deceptive similarity does not hold up to the two.
2. The exercise of the Plaintiff to file multiple registrations suggests mala fide intentions.
3. Generic, laudatory, and descriptive marks cannot be monopolized by anyone. Therefore, the Plaintiff is wrong in claiming a right in the words ‘CPVC’ or ‘PRO’ either individually or in conjunction with each other.
Observations of the Hon’ble Division Bench
The Hon’ble Division Bench directed the Defendant to never use the words ‘CPVC FLOWPRO’ in the standalone form without using its house mark ‘Ashirvad’ and also to represent the said house mark in bigger fonts. These changes were made applicable not only to the products but also to the trade literature.
Mark Shield was pleased to assist the Plaintiff-Astral Limited in the Appeal.
Apoorva Sharma
Apoorva Sharma is an Advocate enrolled with Bar Council of Delhi.
