The Plaintiff, Mangalam Organics Ltd, conceived the mark \u201cCAMPURE\u201d and its stylized logo around March 2017 for its camphor-based products, and obtained registrations in Classes 3, 4 and 5. Its products included deodorants, air fresheners, soaps, hair conditioners, lotions, and sanitary preparations, marketed under the house mark \u201cMangalam.\u201d In 2014, the Plaintiff launched a unique cone-shaped camphor product wrapped in non-woven fabric, which was registered as a trade dress in Class 5, and which was also sold under the CAMPURE mark since 2017. The Plaintiff built substantial goodwill and reputation in the CAMPURE marks, supported by considerable sales and advertising expenditure.<\/p>\n
In 2022, Mangalam Organics discovered that the Defendant, N. Ranga Rao and Sons Pvt Ltd, an established entity in the fragrance and incense industry, was preparing to launch camphor-based products under the marks \u201cKARPURE\u201d and \u201cAIR KARPURE\u201d using similar trade dress. The Defendant had applied for and obtained registrations of these marks in Classes 5 and 11 in 2020\u20132022. Mangalam issued a cease-and-desist notice in December 2022, alleging infringement, but the Defendant denied the claim, relying on its own registrations. Defendant also averred that Plaintiff held no registrations in the cone-shaped trade dress, and that its application for the said mark was opposed.<\/p>\n
In 2024, the Plaintiff sought cancellation of the Defendant\u2019s KARPURE trademark before the Trademark Office.<\/p>\n
The Court determined that the following issues were relevant in the matter:<\/p>\n
The Plaintiff argued that the mark CAMPURE had acquired strong reputation and goodwill through continuous use, extensive sales, and promotional activities. The Plaintiff contended that KARPURE and AIR KARPURE were phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to its mark and likely to mislead consumers. It was further submitted that the suffix \u201cPURE\u201d was distinctive in connection with camphor products and had come to be exclusively associated with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff also emphasized that under the Trade Marks Act, passing off actions were maintainable even against registered proprietors.
\nThe Defendant, in contrast, asserted that as the registered proprietor of its marks, it was entitled to their use and immune from infringement claims. The Defendant highlighted that \u201cCAMPURE\u201d and \u201cKARPURE\u201d were sufficiently dissimilar in sound and appearance, noting the distinctive use of \u201cK\u201d and the addition of \u201cAIR\u201d in its mark. It also argued that \u201cPure\u201d was a common descriptive term in the trade and that no one could claim monopoly over it. Furthermore, the Defendant pointed out that the Plaintiff had not opposed its registration applications at the relevant stage and could not now challenge them belatedly. It stressed its own reputation and longstanding business in fragrance products, which lent distinctiveness to its marks.<\/p>\n
The Court examined the provisions of the Trade Marks Act, particularly Sections 27, 28, 29, and 30. It noted that while passing off actions are indeed maintainable against a registered proprietor, infringement claims cannot succeed where the Defendant is itself a registered owner of the impugned marks. On the question of similarity, the Court emphasized that rival marks must be considered as a whole and not dissected into parts. Consequently, \u201cCAMPURE\u201d and \u201cKARPURE\/AIR KARPURE\u201d were found to be different in their overall structure and impression. The Plaintiff\u2019s reliance on the common use of the element \u201cPURE\u201d was not tenable, as \u201cPure\u201d is a descriptive word that many traders use in relation to camphor and similar products.<\/p>\n
The Court also compared the packaging and trade dress of the products and found noticeable differences in design, color schemes, and overall presentation. These differences, according to the Court, reduced the likelihood of confusion. Importantly, the Court held that the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate any ex facie illegality or fraudulent registration on the part of the Defendant that could justify overriding the Defendant\u2019s statutory rights as a registered proprietor. It also rejected the defence of delay, laches, or acquiescence in bringing the action. The Court also determined that the Plaintiff had failed to make out a prima facie case of passing off, and thus the Plaintiff was entitled to no relief.<\/p>\n
The Court held that the Plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case for either trademark infringement or passing off. It held that the rival marks were not deceptively similar in a manner likely to cause confusion, and that the Defendant was entitled to use its registered marks \u201cKARPURE\u201d and \u201cAIR KARPURE.\u201d Consequently, the Plaintiff\u2019s Interim Application seeking injunction was dismissed.<\/p>\n