The Delhi High Court in the case Preetendra Singh Aulakh v. Green Light Foods Pvt. Ltd observed and has restrained a manufacturer of Tamil Nadu from using ‘monsoon harvest’ mark which being till the pendency of a trademark infringement suit filed by owner of ‘Monsoon Harvest Farms’.
The bench headed by Justice Navin Chawla in the case observed that the plaintiff, Preetendra Singh Aulakh being the registered proprietor of the mark ‘Monsson Harvest Farms’ and it also being the prior user and the product of defendant is deceptively and confusingly similar.
The court in the case stated that mark of the plaintiff and the defendant appears to be similar both visually as also phonetically, with ‘MONSOON HARVEST’ which being the dominant part. Therefore, the word ‘WINGREENS’ or the logo in the mark of the defendant and the same being not sufficient to distinguish the same on application of the test of an unwary purchaser of an average intelligence with regards to an imperfect recollection.
Adding to it, the court in the case stated that both the goods being similar and allied as they being the food items which are to be sold over the counter, while adding the attempt in order to distinguish upon them on one being processed and the other being unprocessed the same appears to be artificial.
In the present case, the suit is filed by one Aulakh against the Green Light Foods Private Limited where it is alleged that the entity copied its trademark ‘Monsoon Harvest Farms’ with the dishonest intentions in order to deceive the consumer and the public. Thus, such use and adoptions of mark in the suit amounted to infringement of the trademark of Aulakh’s, while passing off, and unfair competition.
The bench headed by Justice Chawla in the case observed and has passed an interim order wherein it is stated that Aulakh was able to show a case of infringement and passing it off against the Green Light Foods Private Limited.
Further, the court in the case observed that the goods of both the parties were allied and cognate products.
It has also been stated by Justice Chawla that the respective users of the goods of both the parties are the end point retail consumers. Thus, the plaintiff and the defendant are entities which come under the category of food industry. Therefore, the goods of the parties are normally to be sold through the same supply chain and to the same customers who may consider the said items sold by the defendant as emanating from the plaintiff and the plaintiff in the case has filed on record evidence showing actual complaints of confusion being caused in the mind of an unwary consumer.