Comments
Madras High Court today upheld the order of a single judge-Bench restraining a Bangalore-based company from infringing Hinduja group flagship company Ashok Leyland’s registered trademark “Luxura” by using an identical and deceptively similar trademark on their buses.
The court dismissed the appeal of Blue Hill Logistics Pvt Ltd that had challenged the December 21 order of a single judge-Bench of Justice V Ramasubramanian.
Ramasubramanian passed the interim order after Ashok Leyland moved the court, seeking an injunction to restrain Blue Hill Logistics Pvt Ltd of Bengaluru and Dilip Chhabria Design Private Ltd of Mumbai from infringing its trade mark.
Ashok Leyland had submitted that they had launched the Luxura bus in 2006 and sold it to many customers all over India, including Transport Corporations.
Blue Hill which launched bus services between Bengaluru and Chennai under the disputed trademark ‘Luxuria’ using Volvo buses designed by Dilip Chaabria Design Private Ltd, contended Ashok Leyland cannot claim monopoly either over the word “Luxury” or over the variants of that word.
It said the registered trade mark of the Ashok Leyland pertained to goods, while the trade mark adopted by it pertained to services and that there was neither prima facie case nor balance of convenience in favour of Ashok Leyland to grant injunction.
Dismissing the appeals, a Division Bench comprising Justice R Banumathi and Justice V Periyakarrupiah said, “Since the plaintiff (Ashok Leyland) is the registered proprietor of the trade mark, its statutory right is to be protected. Once prima facie case of infringement of trade mark is established, normally an injunction must follow.”
The Bench said since the case of Ashok Leyland was not marginal, there was no doubt that plaintiff would suffer, if the Blue Hills Logistics and Dilip Chhabria Design Private Ltd were not restrained from using the infringing mark “Luxuria“.
“On the other hand, if the defendants are restrained from using the mark “Luxuria”, Blue Hills Logistics may not lose the business,” it said.
Having regard to the plaintiff’s exclusive right to use of the mark and weighing the various factors and also balance of convenience, the learned single Judge rightly granted temporary injunction, the bench held.
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.