N. Ranga Rao and Sons v. Anil Garg 128 (2006) DLT 649 : 2006 (32) PTC15 (Del)

N. Ranga Rao and Sons v. Anil Garg, 2006 Case Summary

Facts/Plaint

1. Both parties were involved in some kind of business of manufacturing and sale of agarbattis.
2. The plaintiff filed a suit for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using the packaging of the defendant's six "Dia" products which were alleged to be similar to the plaintiff's "Lia" products. 
3. Also, it was alleged that the defendant's trademark "Dia" had been deliberately copied from the plaintiff's mark "Lia" to deceive the consumer. Also, the name of the product, price, and quantity of the sticks per pack, and theme and layout packaging were similar.
4. The plaintiff also claimed that the defendant was trying to utilize the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff to pass off its products.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant's trademark and its artistic features and labels are identical with or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark.
2. Whether the defendants have honestly adopted the trademark and hence are entitled to the benefit of honest and concurrent users.

Arguments of the defendants

1. The trademark of the defendants was "Lotus Dia", not "Dia".
2. They adopted the mark "Lotus Dia" bonafide during the course of business.
3. Both the marks are different in their artistic features and trade dress.

Decisions

1. The defendant's trademark and its artistic features and labels are deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark.
2. The defendant deliberately attempted to pass off their goods as the plaintiff's goods, hence the benefit of honest use can't be availed.
3. The plaintiff is entitled to a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants or anyone acting under them.

Reasoning

1. The essential ingredient feature of the defendant's mark is "Dia" not "Lotus Dia" because:-
1. The word "Lotus" is used as a prefix and written in small and less significant font.
2. Also, the defendant applied for registration of the mark "Dia" only.
2. Similarity in both the marks and packaging:-
1. Writing font 
2. Underlined by a curved line
3. Phonetic similarity
4. Colour scheme
5. Packaging
6. Use of vernacular scripts of Devnagari, Tamil, Kannada, and Telugu at almost the same position.
3. The overall impression from the color scheme, arrangement of letters, style of writing of the mark, the general get-up, and trade dress leads to the conclusion that the defendant tried to pass off their goods as that of the plaintiff.
4. The second comer has to name and dress their product in such a manner as to avoid all likelihood of confusion.
5. Parle Products Ltd. Case:- To determine the deceptive similarity between the two marks, the broad and essential features of the two have to be considered.