"Plaintiff's Artwork Has Been Lifted With Irrelevant Modifications"; Bombay HC Grants Injunction Against Men's Apparel Brand

Justice GS Patel was hearing a commercial IP suit filed on behalf of Savla Corporation alleging that the defendant Aristo Apparels label "SERON" is deceptively similar to their trademark "SERO". The defendant company is a sole partnership concern owned by Kalji Patel.

At the outset, the Court examined the artistic work involved in designing the plaintiff's trademark. Justice Patel noted -

"As can be seen, the Plaintiff's mark has a tilted oval device with a white border. In this is inset a stylized cursive 'S' looping on itself. One part of it is shaded a deep red and another part is in deep blue.

The Defendant's artwork is depicted above and is also at page 114. The device itself is confusingly and deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff. Again, we see an inset in circle albeit with a black border and a stylized cursive 'S' shape. One part of it is in deep red and the rest is either in black or deep blue."

Moreover, Justice Patel observed that beyond this the confusion that is likely to occur is from the word marks themselves. The plaintiff's mark is SERO. The defendant has merely added a 'N' to the Plaintiff's mark and has adopted the rival mark. It is not out of place to mention that both marks are used in respect of the same class of goods and the same type of goods, viz., readymade garments and menswear, Court said.

Advocate Hiren Kamod appeared on behalf of the plaintiff and none appeared for the defendant. He submitted that the defendant is aware of the plaintiff's mark and in September 2020, they came to learn of the defendant's activities in selling products in the same category under the impugned mark SERON. On a further search in the records of the Registrar of Trademarks, the plaintiff saw that the defendant has applied for registration of the SERON label mark in class 25, the very class in which the plaintiff enjoys prior registration, Adv Kamod argued.

The bench observed-

"There is no manner of doubt in my mind that the Plaintiff has made out a sufficient prima facie case. The Defendant's mark is confusingly and deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff's. Prima facie, it would appear that the Defendant is trading on the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation."

Finally, Justice Patel directed the court receiver to submit his report by January 23 and said-

"There is a definite structural, phonetic and visual similarity between the Plaintiff's mark and the Defendant's mark. There is no doubt that the artwork in which the Plaintiff enjoys copyright has been lifted and used with only the most minor and irrelevant modifications by the Defendant."

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]