The case of RSPL Limited vs Arjun Kumar, Trading As: SKS Chemical Industries, centers on trademark and copyright infringement involving RSPL Limited’s well-known brand “Ghari” (or “Ghadi”).
Background:
RSPL Limited is a prominent manufacturer and marketer of household cleaning products such as detergent powders, cakes, soaps, and other related goods under the brand name “Ghari.” The company has been using the trademark “Ghari” along with the device of a watch/clock and the punchline “Pahle Istemal Karen Fir Vishwas Karen” since 1955 and 1975, respectively. These trademarks and artistic works are registered and well-known under the Trademarks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957.
Plaintiff Claimed:
RSPL Limited alleged that the defendant, Arjun Kumar, operating as SKS Chemical Industries, had adopted a deceptively similar trademark/label “26 White” with the punchline “Hamesha Istemaal Kare Or Kapde Me Chamak Paaye.” This allegedly infringed upon RSPL’s trademarks and copyrights. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s goods created confusion among consumers, causing loss of sales and reputation. Hence, the plaintiff sought a permanent injunction, delivery up of infringing goods, damages, and rendition of accounts.
Defendant’s Position:
The defendant admitted to an earlier settlement in a similar case (CS (Comm.) No.205/2022) where they had agreed not to use any trademark or packaging deceptively similar to RSPL’s Ghari brand. However, despite the settlement, the defendant allegedly continued to market products under the impugned trademark, violating the court order.
Court Findings and Judgment:
The court found that RSPL Limited had an established and well-known trademark with significant goodwill and market presence. It observed that the defendant had wilfully adopted a similar trademark with identical artistic elements, layout, and punchline to capitalise on the plaintiff’s reputation. The defendant’s actions were deemed dishonest, fraudulent, and in violation of the earlier consent decree.
The court referenced several precedents emphasising the importance of protecting well-known trademarks and artistic works. It held that the defendant’s trademark “26 White” was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “Ghari” trademark, likely to mislead consumers.
The court considered the Local Commissioner’s report, which documented the seizure of 207 bags and 839 pieces of infringing goods worth approximately Rs.10,00,000/-. Citing relevant provisions under the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, the court awarded Rs.5,00,000/- as compensatory damages and Rs.1,50,000/- towards legal costs.