2004 (4) TMI 570 - HC - Companies Law

Appellate Court Reinstates Injunctions for Copyright Infringement and Passing Off

Jolen Inc. Versus Shobanlal Jain

Jolen Inc. Versus Shobanlal Jain - 2005 (30) PTC 385 Mad Issues Involved:1. Interim Injunction2. Infringement of Copyright3. Passing Off4. Jurisdiction5. Delay and Acquiescence6. Trans-Border Reputation7. Validity of Power of AttorneyIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Interim Injunction:The appellant sought interim injunctions to restrain the respondents from infringing on their copyright and passing off their goods as those of the appellant. The learned Single Judge initially vacated the interim injunctions, but the appellate court reinstated them, highlighting that the appellant had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. The court noted that the respondents had slavishly copied the appellant's trademark, color scheme, get-up, and layout, which could mislead consumers.2. Infringement of Copyright:The appellant claimed infringement of their copyright in the artistic work of the JOLEN crme bleach carton and container. The court found that the respondents had copied the appellant's artistic work in its entirety, including the distinctive style in which JOLEN is written. The court held that the appellant, having established prior use and ownership of the copyright, was entitled to protection against infringement.3. Passing Off:The appellant argued that the respondents were passing off their goods as those of the appellant by using an identical trademark and packaging. The court agreed, noting that the respondents' use of the JOLEN trademark and similar packaging was likely to deceive consumers. The court emphasized that passing off is an action to protect the reputation and goodwill of a trader, and the appellant had established a prima facie case of passing off.4. Jurisdiction:The respondents challenged the jurisdiction of the court, arguing that the appellant's goods were not marketed in India through official channels. The court rejected this argument, holding that advertisements in international magazines with circulation in India and the availability of the appellant's goods in India through non-official sources were sufficient to confer jurisdiction. The court also noted that the appellant had produced evidence of sales in Chennai, within the court's jurisdiction.5. Delay and Acquiescence:The respondents contended that the appellant was guilty of delay and acquiescence, having known about the respondents' use of the trademark since 1985. The court held that mere delay in bringing an action does not defeat the grant of an injunction in cases of trademark or copyright infringement. The court found that the appellant had been actively pursuing legal remedies and was not guilty of acquiescence.6. Trans-Border Reputation:The appellant claimed that their trademark JOLEN had trans-border reputation, which extended to India. The court agreed, citing advertisements in international magazines with circulation in India and the availability of the appellant's goods in India. The court held that the appellant had established a prima facie case of trans-border reputation, and the respondents' use of the JOLEN trademark was likely to mislead consumers.7. Validity of Power of Attorney:The respondents challenged the validity of the Power of Attorney executed in favor of Arulselvan, arguing that it was not properly stamped and that Arulselvan, being an advocate, should not act as a Power of Attorney. The court rejected these arguments, finding that the original Power of Attorney was duly stamped and validated. The court also held that an advocate could act as a Power of Attorney, provided there was no conflict of interest.Conclusion:The appellate court allowed the appeals, reinstating the interim injunctions against the respondents for infringement of copyright and passing off. The court held that the appellant had established a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience was in their favor. The court also found that the appellant had trans-border reputation and that the jurisdiction of the court was properly invoked. The court directed that the interim injunction be suspended for ten weeks to allow the respondents to sell off their existing stock, subject to certain conditions.