The case of Dcm Shriram Limited vs Mr Amreek Singh Chawla & Ors. is a significant trademark dispute concerning deceptive similarity in branding and trade dress infringement. The case revolves around allegations by Dcm Shriram Limited, a well-established agricultural company, against the defendants for selling wheat seeds under similar packaging and branding, thereby misleading consumers and causing market confusion.
Background of the Case:
Dcm Shriram Limited, a leading player in the agribusiness sector, filed a suit against Mr Amreek Singh Chawla and others, alleging that the defendants were selling wheat seeds under the names ‘Sartaj 303’ and ‘Sartaj 404’, which were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s products ‘Shriram Super 303’ and ‘Shriram Super 404’. The plaintiff contended that the defendant’s trade dress, including packaging design, colour scheme, and branding elements, was nearly identical to its products, leading to consumer confusion.
The plaintiff further argued that it had been using the ‘Shriram Super 303’ mark since 2013 and the ‘Shriram Super 404′ mark since 2015 and that the defendants’ similar branding was a clear case of trademark infringement and passing off. The suit sought a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the disputed marks and packaging.
Legal Arguments:
Dcm Shriram Limited asserted that the defendants’ branding and packaging were deceptively similar to its registered trademarks and trade dress. The plaintiff emphasised that its products had established a strong market presence and goodwill since their introduction. It further claimed that the ex-parte ad interim injunction issued on November 8, 2024, was justified as the defendants’ activities had led to consumer deception. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had copied its product packaging design, logo, and overall presentation, which was likely to mislead consumers. It maintained that its operative had discovered the infringing products on October 30, 2024, at a retail store in Bihar, which prompted legal action.
The defendants countered these claims by arguing that the plaintiff had prior knowledge of their products since at least 2018, contradicting the assertion that the infringing activity was discovered only in 2024. They contended that ‘Sartaj 303’ and ‘Sartaj 404’ had been in the market since 2014, even before the plaintiff introduced ‘Shriram Super 404’ in 2015. The defendants also emphasised that the terms ‘303’ and ‘404’ were generic and commonly used for seed varieties, making them ineligible for exclusive trademark protection. They accused the plaintiff of attempting to mislead the court by withholding crucial information about the long-standing presence of their products. The defendants further argued that their packaging and trade dress were distinct enough to prevent consumer confusion.
Court’s Observations and Verdict:
After reviewing the arguments, the Delhi High Court observed that the plaintiff had suppressed material facts, as evidence showed it was aware of the defendants’ branding since 2018. The court noted that the defendants had been selling products under the ‘Sartaj 303’ and ‘Sartaj 404’ marks since 2014, predating the plaintiff’s introduction of ‘Shriram Super 404’ in 2015. It was also observed that the terms ‘303’ and ‘404’ appeared to be descriptive and commonly associated with seed varieties, reducing the strength of the plaintiff’s exclusivity claim. As a result, the ex-parte injunction granted earlier was vacated, allowing the defendants to continue selling their products. However, the court referred the trade dress similarity issue to mediation, recognising that the packaging elements could still be a point of contention.