Trademark 'Amul' deserves broad protection even against non-competing goods, services: Calcutta High Court

The trademark 'Amul' signifies the movement in India's rural areas towards prosperity and should, therefore, be afforded a broad protection against unauthorised use even with respect to non-competing goods and services, the Calcutta High Court recently held [Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. vs Maa Tara Trading Co.].Single-judge Justice Krishna Rao said Amul is a brand known not only in India but across the globe and Indian public perceives it as having association with the plaintiff, Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. "The brand (Amil) symbolises a very Indian brand that has become a household name across the length and breadth cutting across class lines. The trade mark 'AMUL', irrespective of goods it is applied upon, is the sole repository and identifier of the plaintiff and its member. It symbolises a movement among Indian Rural Community towards prosperity and Indian public perceives it as having association of connection with the plaintiffs and no other. Thus, this brand deserves a broader scope of protection against unauthorised use on none competing goods or services," the Court observed.It, therefore, restrained a local candle distributing company in West Bengal from using the trademark 'Amul Candles'. .The Court was hearing a suit filed by Amul seeking injunction against the defendant Maa Tara Trading Co. after it came across their advertisements issued in February 2020. The ads in some local newspapers showed the defendant's product as 'Amul Candles' to which the plaintiff objected, claiming that the trademark 'Amul' was registered by the plaintiff in the year 1958..The Court accepted the argument and said that the trade mark cannot be utilized by any person or entity other than the plaintiffs and also cannot be used in relation to any goods in service other than those of by the plaintiffs."The defendants are not entitled to use the mark 'AMUL' or any other mark deceptively similar thereto as that of the plaintiffs. The trade mark of the plaintiff has assumed a secondary meaning and as such it is solely and exclusively identified with the goods and services of the plaintiffs. The said trade mark cannot be utilized by any person or entity other than the plaintiffs and also cannot be used in relation to any goods in service other than those of by the plaintiffs," the judge opined..The judge further said that the defendants knowingly, deliberately and fraudulently adopted the well known trade mark “AMUL” including an identical and deceptively similar font/writing style only to take undue advantage of the immense reputation and goodwill acquired by the plaintiffs and make undue profits there from. In doing so, the defendants have infringed the statutory right of the plaintiff as Amul is a prior used, registered and well known trade mark of the plaintiffs by which it is identified globally.The judge also highlighted that Amul stands 66th on the list of well known trademarks."This Court is of the view that the defendants have tried to dupe the general public by using of an identical mark 'AMUL' in respect of candles in violation of statutory rights as well as the common law rights of the plaintiffs. Such usage would inevitably lead to loss of revenue as also that of goodwill. Accordingly, the defendants have indulged into the offence of passing off and have infringed the registered trademark of the plaintiff as well as committed the torts of passing off," the bench concluded..The Court noted that the defendants filed their response by way of written submissions after considerable delay.The judge pointed out that the suit is the commercial one and thus invoked Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which allows expeditious disposal of suits to curb dilatory tactics, often resorted to by defendants by not filling the written statements, by pronouncing judgments against it.Therefore, the Court decreed the suit in favour of Amul..Advocates Sayan Roy Chowdhury, Victor Dutta and Manosij Mukherjee represented Amul..[Read Judgment]