Cross-border trademark reputation and identical use of a coined mark justified infringement, passing off, injunction and damages.

A coined mark with established cross-border reputation and customer access from India was held protectable in India despite the absence of a physical Indian business. The defendants' use of the identical mark as part of their trade name for identical services was found likely to cause confusion and amount to trademark infringement and passing off. The court also treated the unexplained adoption of the coined mark as supporting dishonest appropriation. Injunction, damages and costs were granted, and the defendants were permanently restrained from using the mark or any deceptively similar mark.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs established prior use and trans-border reputation in the mark "easyJet" so as to restrain the defendants from using an identical or deceptively similar mark. (ii) Whether the defendants' adoption of the mark as part of their trade name and in relation to identical services amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, entitling the plaintiffs to injunction and damages.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs established prior use and trans-border reputation in the mark "easyJet" so as to restrain the defendants from using an identical or deceptively similar mark.

Analysis: The plaintiffs showed first adoption and registration of the mark in 1995, with Indian use and accessibility through the website from 1998 onwards. The material on record showed substantial publicity, customer access from India, media coverage in India and abroad, and the consequent spill-over of reputation into India. On that basis, the mark had acquired protectable goodwill and reputation, even though the plaintiffs did not operate a physical business in India.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the plaintiffs; prior use and reputation in India were established.

Issue (ii): Whether the defendants' adoption of the mark as part of their trade name and in relation to identical services amounted to trademark infringement and passing off, entitling the plaintiffs to injunction and damages.

Analysis: The defendants used an identical mark as part of their trade name for services falling within the same class as the plaintiffs' registered services. The use was therefore covered by the statutory infringement provisions, including use of a registered mark as a trade name and use in relation to identical services. Given the plaintiffs' established reputation, such use was likely to cause confusion and mislead the public into assuming an association with the plaintiffs. The defendants offered no explanation for their adoption of the coined mark, supporting an inference of dishonest appropriation and passing off. Damages were also considered appropriate because the defendants remained ex parte and the plaintiffs' case on injury to goodwill was unrebutted.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the plaintiffs; infringement, passing off, injunction and damages were granted.

Final Conclusion: The defendants were permanently restrained from using the plaintiffs' mark or any deceptively similar mark, and the suit was decreed with damages and costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi: A coined trademark with established cross-border reputation and actual customer access in India is protectable in India, and identical use of that mark for identical services, including as part of a trade name, constitutes infringement and passing off where confusion is likely.

---