The Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in a case involving trademark infringement and passing-off case, ruled in favour of the plaintiffs Rado Uhren AG and others (Tissot SA, Omega SA, Compagnie des Montres Longines Francillon SA, and Swatch AG), that form part of the Swatch Group (hereinafter together referred to as \u2018Swatch Group\u2019 or \u2018Plaintiffs\u2019)<\/p>\n
The Court granted a permanent injunction against four New Delhi traders, Surjeet Singh, Babalu Kumar, Yogesh Kumar, and Pawan Kumar, (hereinafter together referred to as the \u2018Defendants\u2019) prohibiting them from using Swatch Group\u2019s marks, including “RADO”, “TISSOT”, “OMEGA”, “LONGINES”, \u201cCK\u201d, \u201cCALVIN KLEIN\u201d and “SWATCH\u201d (hereinafter together referred to as \u2018Swatch Group Trademarks\u2019).<\/p>\n
The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants were engaged in the unauthorized use of their trademarks on counterfeit watches. The plaintiffs invoked their statutory rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957, asserting that the infringing activities of the defendants caused reputational and financial harm. The plaintiffs, therefore, sought injunctive relief to restrain the defendants from using their trademarks, along with the delivery of counterfeit goods and payment of legal costs.<\/p>\n
Counterfeit watches bearing Swatch Group trademarks were seized from the defendants’ premises during a search conducted by court-appointed local commissioners. The defendants failed to appear to contest the suit despite multiple notices. The Court ruled, based on the preponderance of probability, that the defendants\u2019 actions constituted trademark infringement and passing off.<\/p>\n
The court recognized that the defendant\u2019s actions were likely to cause confusion and deceive the purchasing public into believing that the counterfeit goods were genuine products of the plaintiffs. The court further observed that the misrepresentation would harm the plaintiffs’ goodwill and unfairly benefit the defendants by capitalizing on the plaintiffs’ established reputation.<\/p>\n
The Court therefore decreed a permanent injunction, prohibiting the defendants from selling products under the Swatch Group trademarks, and ordered the delivery of all counterfeit goods for destruction. Costs of the suit were awarded to Swatch Group.<\/p>\n
Citation: <\/strong>Rado Uhren Ag And Ors vs Surjeet Singh And Anr \u00a0CS (COMM.)\/480\/2019, Patiala\u00a0 House Courts, New Delhi, decided on 12 September, 2024, Available on: https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/171049993\/<\/a><\/p>\n Authored by Ritika Singh, Trademark Team, BananaIP Counsels<\/strong><\/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>\nDisclaimer<\/strong><\/h4>\n