Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2014 (10) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (10) TMI 1060 - HC - Indian Laws


Issues Involved:
1. Interim Injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. Conflict of Trademarks.
3. Principle of Anti-Dissection.
4. Identification of Dominant Mark.
5. Phonetic Similarity.
6. Consumer Confusion and Impact of Price Difference.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interim Injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure:
The appellant challenged the order granting an interim injunction to the respondent, restraining the appellant from using the mark 'D'DAAZS' or any other mark deceptively similar to the respondent's trademark 'HAAGEN-DAZS' in relation to ice cream.

2. Conflict of Trademarks:
The respondent, a Delaware-incorporated company, claimed extensive global use and registration of the 'HAAGEN-DAZS' trademark. The appellant, manufacturing ice creams under the name 'D'DAAZS', argued that their mark was derived from a personal name and had been in use since 2009.

3. Principle of Anti-Dissection:
The appellant contended that the trademark 'HAAGEN DAZS' should be protected as an indivisible whole, not for individual elements. They relied on the principle of 'anti-dissection', emphasizing that 'HAAGEN' forms the dominant part of the respondent's trademark, and similarity with 'DAZS' alone should not constitute infringement.

4. Identification of Dominant Mark:
The respondent argued that 'DAZS' was not a non-dominant element and deserved protection. The court noted that both elements 'HAAGEN' and 'DAZS' are equally dominant in the respondent's trademark, rejecting the appellant's submission that only 'HAAGEN' was the dominant part.

5. Phonetic Similarity:
The court highlighted the importance of phonetic similarity in determining trademark infringement. It was noted that 'DAZS' and 'D'DAAZS' are phonetically similar, which could lead to consumer confusion. The Supreme Court's observation that phonetic similarity should not be disregarded even if the visual representation differs was emphasized.

6. Consumer Confusion and Impact of Price Difference:
The appellant argued that their product catered to a different consumer segment due to a significant price difference. The court rejected this argument, stating that ice cream is consumed by people of all ages and economic strata, including children who are not likely to discern such differences. The court also noted that consumer confusion is more likely with inexpensive products like ice cream, which are often bought impulsively.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the interim injunction, emphasizing that both elements of the respondent's trademark 'HAAGEN DAZS' are dominant and deserve protection. Phonetic similarity between 'DAZS' and 'D'DAAZS' was found significant enough to cause consumer confusion. The argument regarding price difference was dismissed, noting that ice cream is a product consumed across different demographics, and even sophisticated consumers are not immune to confusion. The appeal was dismissed, with a 30-day postponement for the appellant to exhaust existing packaging material.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates