Delhi High Court restrains infringement of 'Singh & Singh' trademark by 'Singh + Singh Lawyers LLP'

The Delhi High Court has restrained Singh + Singh Lawyers LLP, a law firm, from using any mark that is identical to or deceptively similar to that of name of another law firm 'Singh & Singh' for rendering legal services at any place and in any form (Singh & Singh LLP vs Singh + Singh Lawyers LLP). .The interim order was passed by Justice Sanjeev Narula in a trade mark infringement suit preferred by law firm Singh & Singh (plaintiff). .The plaintiff was aggrieved by the use of identical marks ‘Singh + Singh’, ‘Singh + Singh Lawyers LLP’ and other derivatives by certain parties including a law firm. .The plaintiff stated that it was India's leading law firm in the fields of Intellectual Property litigation, Information Technology, Technology, Media and Telecommunication (TMT) and related aspects, and the defendant, ‘Singh + Singh Lawyers LLP’ was encashing upon its enormous trans-border reputation and international goodwill. .It was also highlighted that one of the persons associated with the defendant was an ex-associate of the plaintiff. .The defendant, on the other hand, pleaded that the use of the mark ‘Singh + Singh’ was completely bonafide. .It was explained that the defendant was lawfully founded in Toronto, Canada, its areas of practice did not overlap with that of the plaintiff and they also could not practice beyond the jurisdiction of Ontario, Canada. .Further, it was said that ‘Singh’ was part of the name of the person founding the firm. .In view of the submissions, the Court prima facie opined that the infringing marks were identical marks/names and were being used for identical services for identical class of customers/clients..Therefore, the Court held, there was a strong likelihood of confusion among clients. ."There is a strong likelihood that they would be led to believe that ‘Singh + Singh’ is another branch or an associate office of ‘Singh & Singh’. This Court is also of the prima facie opinion that the use of the marks that are identical or deceptively similar to the trademarks of the Plaintiffs, is likely to cause confusion to the clients," the Court said. .Noting that the plaintiff's law practice was not confined to India and that it had a global reputation and goodwill, the Court also rejected the Defendant's stand that its practice was limited to Canada only. ."In this internet-driven world, law firms such as the Plaintiff No. 1 would have a reputation which is not limited by geographical boundaries. Therefore, there is a strong possibility of confusion amongst the foreign clients/law firms relating to the two marks which are predominantly identical," it stated. .The Court added that the adoption of identical mark/name by the defendants, in deceptively similar colour combination, on online platforms for providing legal services was "fraught with mischief and does not appear to be bonafide"..To prevent any impression that the defendant are associated with the plaintiff, the Court proceeded to pass any order of interim injunction. ."The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs, and they are likely to suffer an irreparable loss, in case the injunction is not granted," the Court opined. .Apart from restraining infringement of plaintiff's Singh & Singh mark, the Court also directed the suspension of the domain name of ‘www.singhllp.com’. .Plaint was directed to be registered as a suit and summons was issued..Senior Advocates Rajiv Nayar, Sandeep Sethi, Chander M Lall with Advocates Saurabh Seth Tanmaya Mehta appeared for the plaintiff. .Defendant was represented by Advocates Divjyot Singh, Avsi Malik, Nipun Dwivedi, Nimish Chib. Advocate Alipak Banerjee appeared for Go Daddy. .[Read Order]