INTRODUCTION:
The plaintiff, Tata Sons Private Limited, has brought this lawsuit against the defendants Anjani Bagaria and Mazing Retail Private Limited in the High Court of Delhi, in an effort to seek permanent injunction restraining trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, and tarnishment of trademarks.
The plaintiff, Tata Sons Private Limited, is the major investment holding company and promoter of several TATA Companies, the oldest, biggest, most reputable, and most well-known commercial conglomerate in India. The TATA Group of Companies was founded in 1917 and employs more than 7,50,000 people worldwide. It consists of 100 principal operating enterprises and 29 publicly traded Tata companies, with a total market capitalization of Rs.9,30,000 crores. The plaintiff is the legal and registered owner of the device marks as well as the well-known trademark and copyright “TATA.”
Dispute:
In August 2021, the Plaintiff learned that Defendant No. 1, the owner of M/s Jay Maa Shakti Enterprises, was selling manual and battery-operated sprayer pumps and knapsack sprayers bearing the brand TATA’S STAR SHAKTI (hereinafter, the “impugned products”) through Defendant No. 2’s online store, www.mazing.store.
Court:
Order of 15/11/2021:
On 15th November 2021, an ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted and until further orders, defendants, their partners or proprietors as the case may be are prohibited from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, supplying, advertising, directly or indirectly engaging in any business using the Plaintiffs Trademark.
Order of 27/07/2022
By order dated July 27, 2022, the Court had instructed Defendant No. 1 to provide an affidavit including a detailed summary of M/s Jay Maa Shakti Enterprises’ financial position as well as the amount of sales of the contested goods.
The defendant no. 1 Ms. Anjani Bagaria claims that she bought products with the “TATA” name from the market and sold them both offline and online. She further asserts that she has no objections if the lawsuit is decided in favor of the plaintiff because she has no plans to use the mark “TATA” for any of her future products. She responds that she is also in the business of selling items like garden sprayers, raincoats, mosquito bats, and other comparable products in response to a question from the Court.
Peaceful Settlement:
After the filing of Defendant No. 1’s affidavit, the parties were able to settle their differences peacefully, and the defendants have no objections to the matter being decided in accordance with the prayer made in the plaint.
Terms of Settlement:
i) Regarding online listings, Defendant No. 1 has agreed to remove all mentions of the mark “TATA” in connection with its products from online platforms and shall take action to do so within four weeks of receiving notification from the Plaintiff.
(ii) In terms of costs, Defendant No. 1 must give the Plaintiff a token payment of Rs. 25,000 within a four-week period. However, if Defendant No. 1 continues to use the mark “TATA” or any other similar mark in any way, the Plaintiff is free to exercise all legal remedies available, including future claims for simple and punitive damages against Defendant No. 1.
iii) The “TATA” label must be removed from each of the contested products that the Local Commissioner seized before they can be sold. The accused products’ packaging and labels must also be destroyed in front of the plaintiff’s agent. On November 3, 2022, or on any other time that is convenient for both counsel for the parties, the plaintiff’s representative must visit the defendant’s premises for the same.
(iv) [1]Since Defendant No. 2 is only an online marketplace for Defendant No. 1’s contested products, the current ruling will also apply to Defendant No. 2.
[1] TATA SONS PVT LTD. V. ANJANI BAGARIA & ANR. ,CS(COMM) 569/2021
DUCTUS EDGE 