2003 (4) TMI 403 - HC - Companies Law

High Court rules in favor of advocate in Emblems Act violation case, prohibits commercial use of Mahatma Gandhi's name

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh ruled in favor of the petitioner, an advocate, in a case involving the violation of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of ... Prohibition of improper use of certain emblems and names - use for commercial purposes - colourable imitation - pictorial representation of Mahatma Gandhi - deceptive similarity - res judicataRes judicata - Whether earlier orders of the Bombay High Court and dismissal of SLP by the Supreme Court operate as res judicata and bar re-hearing of the present petition. - HELD THAT: - The Court examined the orders of the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court and found that neither court considered the merits of the challenge; both disposed of the earlier petition and the SLP without reasons. Because the earlier proceedings contained no adjudication on the substantive issues raised under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950, they do not operate as res judicata to preclude this Court from hearing the matter on merits. The preliminary plea that the present petition is a relitigation of a matter already decided is therefore rejected. [Paras 3]Objection of res judicata is rejected and the petition is heard on merits.Prohibition of improper use of certain emblems and names - use for commercial purposes - pictorial representation of Mahatma Gandhi - colourable imitation - deceptive similarity - Whether the use of the name 'Dandi' and the pictorial representation on respondents' salt packets contravenes section 3 read with item 9A of the Schedule to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. - HELD THAT: - The Court analysed section 3 of the Act and item 9A of the Schedule which prohibits use of the name or pictorial representation of Mahatma Gandhi for trade or commercial purposes. On inspection of the packaging, the Court found that the name 'Dandi' and the pictorial depiction create an impression linking the product to Mahatma Gandhi and to the historic Dandi march. Applying the relevant principles of similarity and likelihood of deception (as reflected in the decisions referenced concerning deceptive similarity and passing off), the Court concluded that the combination of the product (salt), the name 'Dandi' intimately associated with Gandhi's Salt March, and the recognisable pictorial imagery amounts to a use prohibited by the statute. The respondents' packaging therefore falls within the prohibition against commercial use of the name and pictorial representation of Mahatma Gandhi under the Act, and the appropriate authorities are directed to act under the statute. [Paras 4, 5, 6, 7, 9]The use of the name 'Dandi' and the pictorial representation on the salt packets contravenes section 3 read with item 9A of the Schedule to the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950; authorities are directed to take steps under the Act to prevent such commercial use.Final Conclusion: The writ petition is allowed: the plea of res judicata is rejected and the Court directs the authorities under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 to take action to prevent commercial use of Mahatma Gandhi's pictorial representation and the name 'Dandi' on the respondents' salt packaging. Issues:Violation of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 by using the name Dandi and pictorial representation on salt packets.Analysis:The petitioner, an advocate, filed a Writ petition seeking to restrain respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from manufacturing, stocking, and marketing their product 'kitchen salt' under the trade mark of Dandi with a pictorial representation resembling Mahatma Gandhi picking up salt. The petitioner argued that this use violates the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. Respondents countered, claiming the petition was filed by business rivals and citing a previous case in Bombay High Court, which was dismissed. However, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh rejected the plea of res judicata, stating that the previous courts did not consider the Writ petition's issues.The Emblems & Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 prohibits the improper use of certain emblems and names for commercial purposes. Section 3 of the Act prohibits the use of specified names or emblems without permission. Section 9A of the Schedule specifically prohibits the use of Mahatma Gandhi's name or pictorial representation for commercial purposes. The court found that the respondents' use of the name Dandi and pictorial representation on salt packets created an impression associating the product with Mahatma Gandhi, thus violating the Act.Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the court emphasized the importance of considering similarities rather than dissimilarities in cases of deceptive similarity. The court highlighted the historical significance of Dandi march associated with Mahatma Gandhi's protest against Salt laws, emphasizing the similarities between the salt being sold and the iconic event. The court concluded that protecting commercial interests in the name of the father of the nation would be unjust, and directed authorities to ensure Mahatma Gandhi's picture or the name Dandi is not used for any commercial purpose in accordance with the Act.