High Court Restrains Delhi-Based Company From Selling Gas Stoves, Kitchenware Under 'Prestige' Mark

Noting that Prestige has been selling its products under the trademark since 1955, and the earliest registration of its mark dates back to 14th December, 1949, Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the contention that pressure cookers and gas stoves are different products and therefore there would be no confusion in the market.

"The use of the trademark 'PRESTIGE' by the defendant no.1 in respect of 'gas stoves' is likely to cause confusion in the market as the public at large would associate the said products of the defendant no.1 with the plaintiff," said the court.

Prestige has filed a trademark suit before the high court seeking a decree of permanent injunction against K.K. And Company Delhi, alleging that the defendant is selling gas stoves under the impugned mark. In the application seeking interim injunction, Prestige pleaded that in view of the tremendous goodwill and reputation attained by the usage of the trademark in respect of pressure cookers, a case of passing off is made out against the defendant.

It further submitted that the trademark was registered in its favour in June, 1981 in respect of “installations for cooking” on a “proposed to be used basis”. Subsequently, the trademark was registered in its favour specifically in respect of “gas stoves” on a “proposed to be used basis”, in September 1999.

K.K. And Company in response argued that it has been continuously using the trademark since January, 1981 and thus, it is a prior user of the trademark in respect of gas stoves.

However, the court noted that the defendant, in support of its contention, has placed only three invoices on record, that too of the year 1982.

“As the defendant no.1 claims to be “continuous user” of the trademark “PRESTIGE” from 1981, it should have filed documents evidencing such “continuous user”. In the absence of any documents, the Court shall presume that there was no “continuous user” by the defendant no.1.” said the court.

The bench said that other than the three invoices of the year 1982 and a few statutory registrations in its favour, no credible evidence in the form of invoices or advertisements or other material has been filed to show that the defendant has been continuously using the trademark so as to constitute any goodwill or reputation in its favour.

“Accordingly, I am of the view that the defendant no.1 has at best shown sporadic use of the impugned trademark, which would not qualify it as a “continuous user” in terms of section 34 of the Act,” the court said.

The bench noted that Prestige, on the other hand, has placed on record various invoices from the year 2007 to show sales of “gas stoves”, and advertisements of the year 2019 to show that it is in the business of selling “gas stoves” under the trademark “PRESTIGE”.

"On the basis of the sales turnover as well as the promotional expenses placed on record by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has also established, at a prima facie stage, immense goodwill and reputation of its trademark 'PRESTIGE', albeit in respect of 'pressure cookers'," the court added.

The bench further noted that the date of registration in favour of Prestige in respect of “installations for cooking” is of 16th June, 1981, and the three invoices filed on behalf of the defendant are admittedly of a subsequent date.

While holding that the phrase “installations for cooking” would cover within its scope “gas stoves”, the court said that the defendant failed to establish use of the trademark prior to the registration granted in favour of Prestige.

Rejecting the argument that pressure cooker and gas stoves are different products, the court observed that since the two goods are used as kitchen appliances, the use of the trademark “PRESTIGE” by the defendant in respect of gas stoves is likely to cause confusion in the market as the public at large would associate the product with Prestige’s pressure cooker.

“In view of the discussion above, a prima facie case of infringement as well as passing off is made out on behalf of the plaintiff. Balance of convenience is also in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant no.1. The plaintiff shall continue to suffer irreparable injury to its goodwill and reputation if the defendant no.1 is permitted to manufacture and sell goods bearing the impugned trademark,” the court said.

The court thus passed an interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark.

Case Title: TTK Prestige Ltd versus KK & Company Delhi Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 177

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Mr. Hemant Singh, Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Mr. Manish Kumar Mishra, Ms. Akansha Singh, Mr. Srinivas Venkat Rangan and Ms. Tarushi Agarwal, Advocates

Counsel for the Defendant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate for D-1 and D-2. Mr. Mukesh Thakur and Mr. Dhirendra Singh, Advocates for D-3

Click Here To Read/Download Order