Written by: Lex Protector|January 14, 2022
Authored by – Anjali Raj
An efficacious tool that indicates and differentiates the goods and services from each other is the trademark. It is oftentimes illegally used with an intent to attain benefits deceitfully from the goodwill earned by the mark. This case is an important one that sheds light on how a well-known trademark can be replicated by a third party to confuse the consumers by dint of reproducing a similar mark and as a result of that prompting the harming of the reputation of the well-known business and its trademark.
In this case of Britannia Industries Ltd., owns the well-known registered trademark “ GOOD DAY” which is in use since 1986 for goods comprising “biscuits, bread and non-medicated confectionary”, and has multitudinous registration in both India and abroad. The crux of this case is that Britannia Industries filed a suit agin Good Day Oral care for using the impugned trademark ‘GOOD DAY’ for their product toothpaste as a result infringing the trademark owned by Brittania Industries. Thereby, a plaint was set out claiming the usage of the contested mark connote interrelation and a miscomprehend with Britannia’a mark. And claimed that Good Day Oral Care is at fault for trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, and unfair competition and sought damages and permanent injunction against the same.
Britannia Industries aver that the malafide intention of the Good Day Oral Care is quite evident from the fact that they not only replicated the mark “GOOD DAY” but they had also wrongly adopted several representations of Britannia’s smile device which are deceptive when put together. And alleged that how the trademark is being utilized the overall population will connect the Good Oral Care’s goods with the Britannia’s and this befuddles the eyes of the customer. The contention made as opposition by the Good Day Oral care is that the mark “GOOD DAY” is the genetic one used by numerous entities since it has been registered in the power of many other entities the Britannia Industries cannot claim a monopoly over that mark or seek an injunction against the Good Day Oral Care on that ground. The Court later in hearing of both the parties at length inclined to pass an injunction in favor of the Britannia Industries Ltd. taking into account that within the ambit of Section 2 (1) (zg) that the trademark of the Britannia Industries is a well-known one is sufficient one to place on record and have a right to seek injunction relying upon the Section 29 (4) (b) of the Trademark Act 1999. Wherefore the Good Day Oral Care was restraint from selling both physically and by way of the online platform the Goods bearing the trademark ‘GOOD DAY’.
The decision made by the Court was an indispensable one as the trademark was acquainted all together with secure the rights of the producers from being distorted in the market through inferior producers emulating their items causing loss, unfair competition, and harming the reputation of the reputed brand. It was likewise introduced all together to secure the interest of the purchaser from being cheated by the fake suppliers on the trade. Thus, this precedent will be conducive in future cases for penalizing and protecting the interest of the actual owner of the registered trademark.
Co-Author – Rutuparna Acharya
