In an interim relief to RPG Enterprises Ltd, promoter of CEAT Tyres and Software firm Zensar Technologies, the Bombay High Court recently restrained owners of Kolkata-based RPG Opticals and RPG Pharmacy from using names or any other mark, device, logo, domain name which are identical or deceptively similar to ‘RPG’ until further orders.
A single-judge bench of Justice Shahrukh J Kathawalla on March 21 passed a judgement in commercial intellectual property suit filed by RPG Enterprises Ltd against Riju Ghoshal and his wife Poulami Ghoshal of Kolkata based RPG Opticals and RPG Pharmacy claiming that the defendants were infringing and passing off its registered trademark and copyright.
The conglomerate RPG Enterprises, through advocates Hiren Kamod, Kunal Kanungo submitted that in 1979, the company had adopted the trademark “RPG,” an acronym, derived from the initials of its founder Rama Prasad Goenka and over subsequent years, the plaintiff and its group companies adopted various stylised/formative trade marks incorporating the mark RPG for their various products and services.
Kamod submitted that the plaintiff has a long-standing goodwill and reputation and due to its extensive and continuous use of the RPG Marks throughout India and abroad and plaintiff has acquired substantial and valuable reputation and goodwill in RPG marks on which it has exclusive right to use.
“Owing to the diversified business of the Plaintiff and the substantial investment that the Plaintiff makes in supporting and sponsoring diverse activities and in respect of its RPG Marks, plaintiff is no longer restricted to any particular class of goods and/or services but is associated with and used by the Plaintiff across a diverse range of categories,” Kamod argued, adding that the plaintiff deserves to be considered a “well-known trade mark”
However, Senior Advocate P Mukherjee, representing defendants Ghoshals, opposed the plea and argued that their logo marks are distinct, having different fonts and colour scheme and their stylisation is different from the plaintiff’s RPG logo and other RPG marks. There is no deceptive similarity or likelihood of confusion in the minds of an ordinary consumer, Mukherjee argued.
“RPG comes from the first letter of the names of the defendants Riju and Poulami and first letter of the surname of both the defendants (Ghoshal),” Mukherjee clarified.
After perusing submissions, Justice Kathawalla held, “If injunction is not granted, the Plaintiff is likely to suffer/continue suffering irreparable injury. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants. The adoption of the impugned marks by the Defendants is prima facie dishonest and therefore there are no equities in favour of the Defendant.”
Pending hearing and final disposal of the suit, the Court restrained defendants from using the impugned marks.
