In a recent case before the Delhi High Court, Eveready Industries India Limited (the Plaintiff) sought an interim injunction against KSC Industries and others (the Defendants) from using the mark EVERYDAY and related logos, which are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff\u2019s well-known EVEREADY marks.<\/p>\n
Eveready averred that they have been offering \u2018dry cell batteries, rechargeable batteries, flashlights and lighting products\u2019 under the marks \u2018EVEREADY\u2019 and \u2018\u2019 since 1905 through their predecessor-in-interest. Through the course of its business, it has procured registrations over various formative marks of the \u2018EVEREADY\u2019 marks in classes 7, 8, 9, 11 and 13 along with copyrights over the artistic work of the EVEREADY logos. In addition, the \u2018EVEREADY\u2019 was also recognized as a well-known mark by an order of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board in 2020.<\/p>\n
On 10th March 2024, Eveready learnt about the existence of KSC Industries mark \u201cEVERYDAY\/\u201d and upon investigation, Eveready found that the KSC Industries was selling \u201celectric gas lighters\u201d under the name \u201cEVEREADY GAS LIGHTER\u201d on the e-commerce platform, Amazon. Eveready further identified the KSC Industries’ trademark application bearing application no. 4144059 for the mark \u201cEVERYDAY KITCHEN LIGHTER\u201d in class 11, which was refused by the Trade Marks Registry in 2021. It was hence contended by Eveready that KSC Industries is intentionally instigating the consumers to associate its products with the Plaintiff\u2019s well-known EVEREADY marks.<\/p>\n
The Court observed that KSC Industries\u2019 EVERYDAY word and device marks are visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to the EVEREADY marks. The Court further stated that KSC Industries’ adoption and use of the EVERYDAY marks is dishonest and intended to ride on Eveready’s goodwill in its well-known EVEREADY marks as well as violate its copyrights over the artistic works. Therefore, the Court restrained KSC Industries or anyone acting on its behalf from manufacturing, exporting, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or directly or indirectly, dealing with any goods\/ packaging under its deceptively similar EVERYDAY marks until the next hearing.<\/p>\n
Citation: Eveready Industries India Limited vs KSC Industries & Ors, High Court of Delhi, 21st March, 2024, [CS(COMM) 251\/2024]<\/em><\/p>\n Authored by Ms. Swathi Muthukumar, Trademark Team, BananaIP Counsels.<\/span><\/p>\n Reviewed and confirmed by Ms. Benita Alphonsa Basil, Trademark Team, BananaIP Counsels.<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with a Trademark attorney<\/a>, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com<\/a> or 91-80-26860414\/24\/34.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Delhi High Court has issued an interim injunction against KSC Industries, restraining them from using the EVERYDAY mark, which was found similar to Eveready’s well-known EVEREADY trademarks. The Court considered visual, structural, and phonetic similarities and recognised the potential for consumer confusion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":16,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5495,6,11],"tags":[183,486,8931,12072,5,41,5718,102],"class_list":["post-105981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-case-reviews","category-intellectual-property","category-trademarks","tag-bananaip-counsels","tag-delhi-high-court","tag-eveready","tag-everyday-lighters","tag-intellectual-property","tag-trademark-infringement-2","tag-trademark-injunction","tag-well-known-trademark"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105981","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=105981"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105981\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":144392,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/105981\/revisions\/144392"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=105981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=105981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=105981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Disclaimer<\/h2>\n