Mayur versus Mayuri: DHC allows Injunction for Saera Electric’s Trademark

Introduction

The case of Saera Electric Auto Limited vs. Malak Techno Private Limited (CS(COMM) 223/2024) was heard in the High Court of Delhi on 14 March 2024. Saera Electric Auto Limited, the plaintiff, had filed a suit against Malak Techno Private Limited, the defendant, seeking a decree of permanent injunction. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant infringed upon its trademarks ‘MAYURI’, and by using similar marks ‘MAYUR’, and  for e-rickshaws, identical to the plaintiff’s e-rickshaw products.

The Claims for Trademarks

The plaintiff, a company incorporated in 2011, claimed ownership of the trademarks ‘MAYURI’, and for e-rickshaws and electric vehicles. They also asserted copyright ownership in the artistic work of the device marks. The plaintiff claimed to have filed a trademark application for ‘MAYURI’ in Class 12 in 2011, claiming user rights since 2011. They stated that since then, they have been one of the leading e-rickshaw manufacturers in India. The plaintiff sent a Cease-and-Desist Notice to the defendant on 16th June 2023, which received no response. However, the defendant continued advertising their products with the impugned marks on platforms like India Mart.

Court’s Analysis

Firstly, the plaintiff’s counsel argued that the defendant was approaching the plaintiff’s dealers to sell their products, further evidencing the infringement. Considering the facts presented, the Court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for an ex-parte ad interim injunction. The balance of convenience was in favor of the plaintiff, and failure to grant the injunction would cause irreparable harm.

Secondly, the Court examined the plaintiff’s ownership of the trademarks and their use in the market since 2011.

Thirdly, it considered the defendant’s unauthorized use of similar marks for e-rickshaws, which directly competed with the plaintiff’s products.

Also, the Court noted the Cease-and-Desist Notice sent to the defendant, lack of response, and continued advertising of the impugned products.

What the Court Held

Firstly, the Court directed the registration of the plaintiff’s suit as a formal case.

Secondly, the Court allowed exemption from attempting pre-institution mediation based on the judgment in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia v. R.A. Perfumery Works Private Ltd., FAO (COMM) 128/2021.

Thirdly, the Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The defendant, associates, affiliates, and all acting on their behalf were restrained from manufacturing, promoting, selling, or dealing with e-vehicles or e-vehicle parts bearing the impugned marks ‘MAYUR’, and  or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademarks ‘MAYURI’, and .

Separately, the Court granted exemption to the plaintiff from filing clearer copies of documents, provided they file legible and clear original copies before the next date of hearing.

What To Look Forward To

Currently, the relief lies interim in its nature and the court directed the defendant to file a reply within four weeks, with an advance copy to the plaintiff’s counsel. The plaintiff has been allowed to file a rejoinder if desired. Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the CPC has also also directed within one week and the case lies listed for the next hearing on 22nd July 2024.

About Tejaswini Kaushal 17 Articles
Ms. Tejaswini Kaushal is a 3rd-year B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow. She is keenly interested in Intellectual Property Law, Technology Law, and Corporate Law.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*