Mittal Electronics vs Sujata Home Appliances (P) Ltd

14th September, 2020 - 3:25 am Categories: Legal Issues 0 Comments

Khurana and Khurana, has successfully obtained modification of the ex-parte ad interim injunction order granted against the Defendants in Mittal Electronics v. Sujata Home Appliances Pvt Ltd &Ors CS(Comm) 60/2020, for both, concealment  of material facts as well as on merits.The Delhi High Court has upheld the Supreme Court ruling in Nandhini Deluxe v. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. (2018) and has reinstated that the proprietor of a trade mark cannot enjoy monopoly over the entire class of goods and, particularly, when he is not using the said trade mark in respect of certain goods falling under the same class.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court observed that even though plaintiff is the prior user of the mark ‘SUJATA’ but for the goods mixer, grinders, blenders, however, for the goods water filters, water purifiers and RO System, Rajesh Kumar Bansal the licensor and director of defendant No.1 is the prior registered owner of the mark SUJATA and also the prior user, in fact the only user as till date plaintiff has not used the mark ‘SUJATA’ for water filters, water purifiers and RO system. Though the goods of the plaintiff and defendant may fall in same broad classification of home appliances are different goods used for different purposes. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Plaintiff concealed the fact that the Defendants held prior registration on mark ‘SUJATA’ for water filters, water purifiers and RO system.