Summary
The Calcutta High Court, in Kamal Kumar Hirawat vs Maruti Poly Films & Ors, addressed a dispute over the alleged unauthorized use of the trademark "FITTER," which was claimed to be deceptively similar to the registered "FIGHTER" mark for adhesive tapes. The petitioner demonstrated that the respondents' adoption of "FITTER" was likely to cause consumer confusion. After reviewing the evidence and the visual similarities, the court found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and determined that the balance of convenience favored the petitioner. An ad interim injunction was granted, restraining the respondents from using "FITTER" or any similar mark. The decision underscores the court’s approach to deceptive similarity and protection of established goodwill in trademark disputes.
In the case of Kamal Kumar Hirawat vs Maruti Poly Films & Ors, the Calcutta High Court granted interim relief to Kamal Kumar Hirawat (“Petitioner”), the sole proprietor of M/s. Hirawat Trading Co., against Maruti Poly Films and others (“Respondent”). The case pertains to the alleged unauthorized use of the trademark “FITTER” by the respondents, which the petitioner claimed to be deceptively similar to the registered trademark “FIGHTER,” being used for adhesive tapes since 1995.
The Petitioner alleged that in the year 2024, they discovered that the Respondents had applied to register a deceptively similar trademark, “FITTER” for the sale of adhesive tapes. This prompted the Petitioner to file a Notice of Opposition before the TM registry. The Petitioner alleged that the Respondents had deliberately adopted a mark closely resembling “FIGHTER” to cause confusion among consumers and capitalize on the Petitioner’s goodwill.
On examining both adhesive tapes presented during the hearing, the court was satisfied that the respondents’ mark was deceptively similar to the petitioner’s trademark. The Court observed that the Respondents’ adoption of the mark “FITTER,” by replacing the letters “GH” with the letter “T,” was likely to cause confusion in the minds of the general public.
The court held that the petitioner was able to demonstrate a prima facie case of infringement, and that the balance of convenience lay in the Petitioner’s favor. The Court also noted the potential for irreparable harm to the petitioner’s business if the respondents were allowed to continue using the mark.
Therefore, the Court granted an ad interim injunction restraining Maruti Poly Films from using the trademark ”FITTER” or any other mark similar to “FIGHTER”.
Citation: Kamal Kumar Hirawat vs Maruti Poly Films & Ors., High Court of Calcutta, 5th July, 2024 [IA NO. GA-COM/1/2024 IP-COM/15/2024] Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18224658/
Authored by Bhavishya B, Associate, BananaIP Counsels
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.