Believe it or not, we’re still in agreement…trademark infringement of GEETANJALI
– TARU SINGHAL student Jamia Hamdard University, New Delhi
FACTS OF THE CASE
A franchise agreement was executed by both parties on 18.08.2020, allowing the defendants to use the trademark in question on a non-exclusive basis. The defendants did not pay the franchise fee even after constant reminders, which ultimately led the plaintiffs to terminate the franchise agreement via a notice issued on 06.04.2021. After the ease of lockdown restrictions in June 2021, the plaintiffs found that the defendants had been misusing their trademark and were left completely astonished. The defendants, however, continued with the illegal act even after being served with a legal notice on 28.06.2021. Subsequently, the plaintiffs requested an ex parte injunction order against the defendants.
ISSUES AND REASONING
Trademark Infringement: The plaintiff’s trademark ‘GEETANJALI’ was misrepresented by the defendants, causing the violation of plaintiffs’ rights, which led to confusion in people’s minds regarding the authenticity of the plaintiffs’ trademark, which was under the services provided therein.
Non-compliance with the legal notice: The defendants continued their unlawful act in violation of the plaintiffs’ rights even after being served with a legal notice, which implies ignorance and disrespect of the law by the defendants.
TRADEMARK(s) IN QUESTION
- GEETANJALI SALON
- GEETANJALI STUDIO
Justice Jayant Nath of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that the plaintiffs had made a prima facie case. The Court thereby restrained the defendants by way of an injunction from using the impugned marks or any mark that is identical/deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademarks.
Reference: Geetanjali Studio Pvt. Ltd and Anr v/s Nuxi to Kut N Kurl Private Limited CS(COMM) 462/2021