This present case was filed by Polo Lauren Company L.P. (“Polo”) against Landmark Traders and Mystic Emin Private Ltd. (“Defendants”) before the Delhi District Court (“the Court”) alleging trademark infringement and passing off of goods.
Background of the Parties
Polo is an American company renowned for its wide range of apparel / clothing and allied cognate goods under the trademark POLO with or without device mark, POLO PLAYER (viz., the iconic polo player on a horse). Conceived by its founder, Delhi District Court, the trademark POLO has been in use since the year 1967. Interestingly, the origins of the Polo shirts can be traced back to Manipur, India (circa early 1800’s). The word ‘Polo’ is derived from ‘Pulu’ which is the name of the ball which players would hit with mallets.
The defendants are a Delhi-based business engaging in the manufacturing, selling and marketing of articles of clothing, readymade garments, footwear, etc. under the POLO trademarks.
Polo’s submissions
Polo submitted that the Defendants were exporting and importing goods bearing the POLO trademarks in and out of India, through various Custom ports. Polo averred that their trademarks are well-known and registered in India under various classes. Polo, as a brand, has established goodwill and reputation in the business community and public in general. It further argued that the defendants’ use of trademarks identical to / deceptively similar to POLO trademarks in relation to similar goods and services amounts to infringement and causes confusion among purchasing public.
Defendant’s submissions
The defendants denied the usage of Polo’s marks, contending that they are merely merchant exporters and not manufacturers or sellers as alleged by Polo. They facilitate the export of goods to different countries, however, the goods are provided by third parties.
Test for infringement
Applying the test for trademark infringement, the Court held that Polo
had succeeded in proving that defendants were dealing in goods bearing falsified trademark POLO which is identical/deceptively similar to Polo’s trademarks. Therefore, the Court granted a permanent injunction in favour of Polo.
Conclusion
The test evolved by the Courts to adjudge trademark infringement maybe summarised as below:
- If the two marks are identical, likelihood of confusion presumes trademark infringement.
- If the impugned mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark, likelihood of confusion has to be proved.
In the case of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. Superior Industries Ltd. 2003 (27) PTC 63 (Del), the Court defined deceptive similarity to mean that “the mark is likely to deceive or cause confusion in relation to goods in respect of which the plaintiff got its mark registered”.
Trademark Law views infringement through the lens of an average man of imperfect recollection, as opposed to the side-by-side comparison prevalent in Copyright Law. Hence, the marks are compared as would be remembered by persons possessed of an average memory with its usual imperfections.
Citation: The Polo/ Lauren Company L.P vs Landmark Traders Pvt Ltd, CNR No. : DLND010100682018 CS (COMM.)/8/2023 (Delhi District Court 4th Sept., 2024). Available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/77933065/ , last visited on 30-10-2024.
Authored by Ms. Charishma, Associate, Innovation, Consulting & Strategy, BananaIP Counsels
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.