- Achyuth Rao N
TATA SIA AIRLINES Vs. SHENZHEN COLORSPLENDOURGIFT CO LTD & ANR, CS(COMM
Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of TATA SIA Airlines v. Shenzhen Colorsplendour Gift Co. Ltd. & Anr., restrained the Defendant from using the Plaintiff’s VISTARA marks, and decreed suit for permanent injunction along with relief against passing off, dilution, tarnishment and unfair competition in favor of Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff found the Defendant’s use of the Plaintiff’s marks in an identical colour combination on keychains and baggage tags on a Chinese e-commerce website namely AliExpress, which delivers products to India as well. The Court had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff in September 2020. The defendant, in spite of being served with an injunction order, did not contest the suit.
The Plaintiff’s counsel further contended the word mark of the Plaintiff, that is ‘VISTARA’, was declared to be a well-known trade mark as defined under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 by the Court in the decision in TATA SIA Airlines Limited v. M/s Pilot18 Aviation Book Store & Anr.
Considering the fact that the Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the ‘VISTARA’ marks, and since none entered appearance for the Defendant, the Court observed that the Defendant has no justification for the adoption of an identical trade mark for sale of its goods.
Accordingly, the suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant, permanently restraining the Defendant from manufacturing, selling, or using the mark/logo VISTARA. Further, the Plaintiff was held entitled to damages and costs quantified at Rs. 20 Lakh.
TATA SIA Airlines v. Shenzhen Colorsplendour Gift Co. Ltd. & Anr., CS(COMM) 352/2020