Chat with us, powered by LiveChat

+91-80-26860424 / 34

Call Us Today

LinkedIn

Search
 

Trademark Case Review: PEPS Industries v. Coir Foam

BananaIP Counsels > Intellectual Property  > Trademark Case Review: PEPS Industries v. Coir Foam

Trademark Case Review: PEPS Industries v. Coir Foam

Featured image of peps Spine guard mattress is used, as the post is about a trademark issue related to this. To read the post click here.

This article is a contribution by Savitran – Intern at BananaIP Counsels

The Delhi High Court has ordered an interim injunction against Coirfoam India Pvt. Ltd. to desist it from using a mark identical or similar to ‘Spring Guard’, which is the trademark owned and registered by Peps Industries Pvt. Ltd.

To briefly state the facts, the Plaintiff, Peps Industries Pvt. Ltd., is engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing and selling sleep comfort products such as mattresses, pillows, cushions, sofas, beds and related products since its inception in 1996. The Plaintiff has shops not only across India, but also in other countries. Its products are internationally recognized and approved.

The mark ‘Spring Guard’ was registered by the Plaintiff in 2007 under Class 20 for Pillows, Mattresses, Cushions and other similar products falling in the same class. The Plaintiff has spent a huge amount of money on advertising and promotion of its trademarks. Its turnover in the year 2014-15 was INR 160 Crores.

The Defendant, Coirfoam India Pvt. Ltd., has been selling mattresses using the mark ‘Springuard Bonnell’ and ‘Springuard Pocketed’. It is the Plaintiff’s case that the mark is identical and/or similar to the registered trademark of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction before the Delhi High Court in April, 2015, restraining infringement of registered trademark, passing off, dilution of trademark, damages, rendition of accounts and delivery up.

The Court granted an interim injunction stating that a prima facie case is made out and the possibility of irreparable harm or injury tilts the balance of convenience in favour of the Plaintiff. Consequently, until further orders are received, the Defendant is restrained from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, providing services directly or indirectly dealing in goods and services under the impugned trademark ‘Spring Guard’ or any similar mark.

– Article Contributed by Savitran – Intern at BananaIP Counsels

Image Source/Attribution: here

Total Page Visits: 44 - Today Page Visits: 1
css.php
Speak with an IP Expert Today
close slider