1999 (12) TMI 889 - HC - Indian Laws

Court Denies Injunction; No Case for Passing Off or Copyright Infringement as Defendant's Packaging Predates Plaintiff.

Procter and Gamble India Ltd. and Ors. Versus Endolabs Limited and Ors.

Procter and Gamble India Ltd. and Ors. Versus Endolabs Limited and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Passing off action and deceptive similarity.2. Infringement of copyright.3. Use of the word 'Action' and numeral '500' in trademarks.4. Prima facie case for temporary injunction.5. Alleged misrepresentation and misappropriation of goodwill.Detailed Analysis:1. Passing off action and deceptive similarity:The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were passing off their goods as those of the plaintiffs by using cartons and strips that were a colorable imitation of the plaintiffs' distinctive packaging. The court examined the principles of passing off, emphasizing that it involves a misrepresentation leading to confusion among consumers. The court noted that the essential features of the two marks must be considered, and it is not necessary to place them side by side to identify differences. The focus should be on the overall similarity that might mislead an average consumer. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of passing off, as the defendants demonstrated that their packaging existed prior to the plaintiffs' relaunch in October 1998.2. Infringement of copyright:The plaintiffs claimed copyright infringement of their artistic work on the distinctive ACTION 500 cartons. The court analyzed whether the defendants' packaging was a substantial reproduction of the plaintiffs' copyrighted work. However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not prove prima facie that the defendants infringed on their copyright, as the defendants' packaging was shown to have been in use before the plaintiffs' alleged distinctive cartons were introduced.3. Use of the word 'Action' and numeral '500' in trademarks:The plaintiffs argued that the use of 'Action' and '500' by the defendants was misleading and constituted passing off. The defendants countered that these terms were common in the pharmaceutical industry and that the plaintiffs had no exclusive rights to them, as indicated by a disclaimer in their trademark registration. The court agreed with the defendants, noting that the plaintiffs' claim was not based on trademark infringement but on passing off, and the use of the word 'Action' alone did not constitute an essential feature of the plaintiffs' distinctiveness.4. Prima facie case for temporary injunction:The court evaluated whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction against the defendants. Given that the defendants provided evidence of their packaging's prior existence, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction and vacated the ad interim order.5. Alleged misrepresentation and misappropriation of goodwill:The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' actions caused damage to their reputation and goodwill. However, the court emphasized that misrepresentation must be specifically pleaded and proven. The plaintiffs' case was based on the similarity of packaging introduced in October 1998, while the defendants showed that their packaging existed since May 1997. As a result, the court found no basis for the plaintiffs' claims of misrepresentation and dismissed the notice of motion.In conclusion, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction, vacated the ad interim order, and allowed the plaintiffs six weeks to appeal, maintaining the status quo during that period.