The Bombay High Court in the case Pidilite Industries Limited v. Chiripal Industries Limited observed and has granted interim injunction in favour of Pidilite wherein restraining Chiripal from using marks similar or identical to plaintiff’s “HEATX”, “LW+”, and “LW” marks.
It has been claimed by the plaintiff Pidilite Industries infringement and passing off with respect to it’s the trademarks registered HEATX, LW+, LW, and DR. FIXIT with an image of a man who is wearing yellow construction helmet and over a logo copyright wherein having two elephants in the backdrop of sunset pulling in the opposite direction.
It has also been claimed by the plaintiff that the defendant infringed its copyrights and trademark with its trademarks HEAT-TIK, LWP+, and MR. ENGINEER with image of a man who is wearing a construction helmet and the having a logo rhino in the backdrop of a sun. It has also been claimed that the defendant is using mark HEAT-TIK for identical product of heat resistant adhesive.
In the present case, it has also been reiterated by the court while giving of the rival marks, wherein overall impression must be appreciated rather than going into each feature of the marks for ascertaining similarity or difference. Itahs also been stated by the court that the there is no prima facie case showing deceptive similarity between the words Dr. Fixit and Mr. Engineer. It has also been compelled that the image of the man wearing yellow construction helmet in the plaintiff’s registered mark with the image of a man wearing a construction helmet in the defendants registered mark and it has also been held by the court that there being no prima facie case of deceptive similarity or copying on part of the defendant. It has been held by the court that the prima facie plaintiff’s registered trademark HEATX and the defendant’s mark HEAT-TIK which can give rise to confusion. Thus, the contentions made by the plaintiff are being accepted by the court that if the two words are spoken in hurried manner, there being no such confusion as persons from different backgrounds and coming from the various parts of the country can pronounce English words in a manner that can give rise to confusion.
Further, the court observed that the overall colour scheme of the product of the defendant’s with the use of the impugned mark HEAT-TIK is likely to create confusion in the minds of the consumer wherein the same is compared with plaintiff’s HEATX being presented in specific colour scheme.
