Dominant feature test in trademark infringement: QILLA marks were protected against a deceptively similar rice brand pending trial.

Use of HARA QILLA and the QILLA device for rice was found deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered QILLA marks because the dominant and essential feature was QILLA, and the added prefix and minor device changes did not avoid confusion. Honest concurrent use was not established, as the defendants produced no supporting material of continuous use, while the plaintiff acted promptly on discovering the impugned use; delay, laches and acquiescence therefore did not bar interim protection. The plaintiff also showed a prima facie case for injunction through prior use, registration, likely confusion and risk to goodwill, so continued use of the impugned mark and device was restrained pending trial.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the defendants' use of HARA QILLA and the device of QILLA infringed the plaintiff's registered trade marks and was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks; (ii) whether the defendants had established honest concurrent use or whether the plaintiff was barred by delay, laches, or acquiescence from seeking interim relief; (iii) whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for interim injunction.

Issue (i): Whether the defendants' use of HARA QILLA and the device of QILLA infringed the plaintiff's registered trade marks and was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's marks.

Analysis: The essential feature of the plaintiff's marks was the word QILLA, and the defendants had adopted the same dominant feature for the same commodity, rice. The addition of the colour prefix HARA and a slightly different pictorial depiction did not remove the likelihood of confusion. The use of a fort device reinforced the association with the plaintiff's marks and supported the inference of imitation.

Conclusion: The defendants' marks were deceptively similar and infringed the plaintiff's registered trade marks.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants had established honest concurrent use or whether the plaintiff was barred by delay, laches, or acquiescence from seeking interim relief.

Analysis: The defendants failed to place material such as invoices or bills to substantiate long and continuous use of the impugned mark. The plaintiff acted promptly on discovering the use, issued notice, opposed the registration application, and pursued the suit, so the conduct did not amount to acquiescence. Mere delay in approaching the Court was insufficient to defeat interim protection where infringement was continuing.

Conclusion: Honest concurrent use was not established, and the plaintiff was not barred by delay, laches, or acquiescence.

Issue (iii): Whether the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for interim injunction.

Analysis: The plaintiff had long-standing use and registration of the QILLA marks, had developed a family of marks, and showed a continuing risk of confusion and erosion of goodwill. The balance of convenience favoured protection against ongoing infringement pending trial.

Conclusion: The plaintiff made out a prima facie case for interim injunction.

Final Conclusion: The appellate court interfered with the refusal of interim relief and protected the plaintiff's registered trade marks against continued use of the impugned mark and device pending trial.

Ratio Decidendi: For infringement of a registered trade mark, the dominant feature of the mark and the likelihood of confusion must be assessed as a whole, and continuing use of a deceptively similar mark may be restrained where honest concurrent use, acquiescence, and laches are not established.

---