The Supreme Court in the case M/S. Wipro Enterprises Limited V. M/S. Mariyas Soaps and Chemicals observed and has restrained M/s Mariyas Soaps and Chemicals from using the registered trademark of them ‘Chandra’, wherein an appeal is made by Wipro for being similar to its trademarked soap range ‘Chandrika’.
The bench comprising of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S V N Bhatti in the case observed and has directed the respondents are restrained from using the trade mark or trade name, Chandra. In the present case, the Wipro had approached the Apex Court against the order of the Kerala High Court wherein the court set aside the order of the District Court restraining the M/s Mariyas Soaps and the Chemicals from using the registered trademark of them ‘Chandra’ for being prima facie similar to the Wipro’s soap range ‘Chandrika’. The Kerala High Court in the case observed and is of the view of that an owner who bring a registered trademark cannot sue for infringement of his registered trademark if the opposite party also has the trade mark which is being registered.The court in the case observed that ‘Chandrika’ is the Wipro’s registered trademark for Ayurvedic soaps which is launched in 1940. Thus, the aid mark was being registered in 1947 and an all-India registration was obtained in the year 1976. It being the case of Wipro’s, Appellant that M/s Mariyas Soaps and Chemicals i.e., the Respondent was attempting to market washing soap and detergents with a deceptively similar name ‘Chandra’. Therefore, the District Court in the case observed and has found that the mark ‘Chandra’ was deceptively similar to the Wipro’s trademark ‘Chandrika’ and that the colour combination, writing style and design which is used by M/s Mariyas Soaps and Chemicals also had close resemblance and amounted to infringement of the trade mark of Wipro. Thus, the District Court is also of the view that both products are of the same category and class, and the use of the trademark ‘Chandra’ would thus create confusion in the minds of ordinary consumers, and accordingly, the court in the case restrained them from marketing products with the said trademark.
The counsel, Sr. Adv. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, AOR M/S. Khaitan & Co.,Sr. Adv. Jayant Mehta, Adv. Ankur Sangal, Adv. Pragya Mishra, Adv. Kiratraj Sadana appeared for the Appellant
The counsel, Adv. Swathi Hariprasad, AOR Amith Krishnan represented for the Respondent.