Summary
This article analyses the Delhi High Court’s interim injunction in the trademark dispute between Peps Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Coirfoam India Pvt. Ltd. The Court prohibited Coirfoam from using marks identical or similar to ‘Spring Guard’, which is registered by Peps Industries. The Plaintiff demonstrated extensive use, registration, and promotion of the ‘Spring Guard’ mark, while the Defendant used allegedly similar marks for mattresses. The Court found a prima facie case of infringement and passing off, granting relief to Peps Industries. This case highlights key aspects of trademark protection and enforcement in India.
Background
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction restraining Coirfoam India Pvt. Ltd. from using any mark identical or similar to “Spring Guard,” a trademark owned and registered by Peps Industries Pvt. Ltd.
Peps Industries Pvt. Ltd. has been engaged in the manufacture, marketing and sale of sleep comfort products — including mattresses, pillows, cushions, sofas and beds — since its inception in 1996. Its products are sold through outlets across India and in other countries. The mark “Spring Guard” was registered by Peps Industries in 2007 under Class 20 for pillows, mattresses, cushions and allied products. The company’s turnover for the financial year 2014–15 was INR 160 Crore, and it had made substantial expenditure on advertising and promotion of its trademarks.
Questions Before the Court
Whether the marks “Springuard Bonnell” and “Springuard Pocketed,” used by the defendant for mattresses, were identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark “Spring Guard” so as to warrant an interim injunction pending final adjudication of the suit.
Arguments
The plaintiff instituted a suit before the Delhi High Court in April 2015 seeking a permanent injunction restraining trademark infringement, passing off, dilution and rendition of accounts, together with damages and delivery up. It contended that the defendant’s marks were identical or substantially similar to its registered mark, that it had established substantial goodwill in the mark through long use and extensive promotion, and that continued use by the defendant would cause irreparable harm.
The defendant, Coirfoam India Pvt. Ltd., was selling mattresses under the marks “Springuard Bonnell” and “Springuard Pocketed.”
Findings
The Court found that a prima facie case had been made out in favour of the plaintiff. It held that the possibility of irreparable harm or injury tipped the balance of convenience in the plaintiff’s favour. Accordingly, until further orders, the defendant was restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or otherwise dealing in goods and services under the mark “Spring Guard” or any mark deceptively similar to it.
Disclaimer
This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.