The case between Broad Peak Investment Holdings Ltd. and Broad Peak Capital Advisors LLP sheds light on the complexities of intellectual property rights, particularly in the financial sector. The case in the Delhi High Court revolves around allegations of trademark infringement and passing off, with both parties laying claim to the mark ‘BROAD PEAK.’
Background of the Case:
The plaintiffs, Broad Peak Investment Holdings Ltd. and its subsidiary are internationally recognised investment advisory firms incorporated in 2006 in the Cayman Islands and Singapore, respectively. They provide investment advisory services and have been using the mark ‘BROAD PEAK’ in their branding since inception. Their trademark registrations extend across multiple jurisdictions, with their Indian trademark registration dating back to 2017. The defendant, Broad Peak Capital Advisors LLP, was established in 2016 in India, focusing on private equity investments and asset management. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants’ use of the ‘BROAD PEAK’ mark creates confusion in the market and dilutes their brand’s identity.
Plaintiff’s Claims:
The plaintiffs argued that they are the rightful owners of the ‘BROAD PEAK’ trademark and have obtained registrations in various countries, including India. They alleged that the defendant’s use of an identical mark misleads clients into associating their services with the plaintiffs’ established brand. They further presented evidence of third-party confusion, such as misdirected emails and misattributions in financial reports. The plaintiffs also emphasised their prior use of the mark in India since 2008, well before the defendants’ adoption in 2016. Additionally, they highlighted their ownership of the domain ‘broadpeakinv.com,’ registered in 2006, while the defendants’ domain ‘broadpeakadvisors.com’ was registered only in 2016.
Defendant’s Contentions:
The defendants countered the plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that they chose the name ‘BROAD PEAK’ in 2016 after due diligence and had no knowledge of the plaintiffs at that time. They asserted that they have continuously used the mark since their incorporation, catering to a different customer base. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs manage funds globally, whereas they operate within India’s private equity sector, targeting a different clientele. They also emphasised that they had obtained their own trademark registration and had prior commercial use in India since August 2016. Moreover, they argued that the plaintiffs’ previous settlement agreement with a U.S.-based entity using the same name was not binding on them.
Court’s Observations and Ruling:
After hearing arguments from both sides, the Delhi High Court made key observations. While both parties hold registrations for ‘BROAD PEAK,’ Indian trademark law allows co-existence where justified. The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate widespread confusion or market harm, as their India-based operations were not as extensive as claimed. Since the defendants had been operating in India since 2016, their adoption of the mark appeared bona fide. The court also ruled that while the plaintiffs may have international goodwill, the territoriality principle in trademark law means they must prove their reputation specifically in India. Consequently, the court denied the interim injunction, allowing the defendants to continue using the mark until a final decision is made