Recently, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has, in a suit for injunction filed by ITC Limited (“Plaintiff”), restrained Arpita Agro Products Pvt Ltd & Ors. (“Defendants”) from using the mark POWERNYM.
The brief facts of the case is that, the Defendants, assigned its rights in the marks NIMYLE and JOR-POWR, in Classes 5 and 3, respectively, to the Plaintiff in 2018. The Plaintiff, thereafter, in 2023, learned of the Defendants’ adoption of the mark POWERNYM in Classes 3 and 5.
The Plaintiff challenged this subsequent adoption of the mark POWERNYM by the Defendants on the ground that it is derived from and deceptively similar to the marks NIMYLE and JOR-POWR, both of which, the Defendants have already assigned to the Plaintiff. The Defendants, on the other hand, argued that the mark POWERNYM, including the packaging, composition and branding of the products offered under the mark POWERNYM are distinct.
The Court, however, ruled that, given the history between the rival parties, the Defendants seems to have adopted the mark POWRNYM with the intention of portraying the mark POWRNYM as a variant of the Plaintiff’s NIMYLE and JOR-POWR marks. Moreover, the shape, style and getup of the bottle adopted by the Defendants is also similar to that of the Plaintiff’s products under its NIMYLE and JOR-POWR marks. The Court therefore restrained the Defendants from using the mark POWRNYM or any mark deceptively similar to or derived from the NIMYLE and JOR-POWR mark or NIM family of marks, till the pendency of the suit.
ITC Limited vs. Arpita Agro Products Pvt Ltd & Ors. [CS (COMM) 698 of 2023], Order dated October 8, 2024
Comments