Admissibility of a Composite Suit For Design Infringement And Passing Off

Background

Trademark and designs are two distinct branches of IP law however often said to be overlapping. Besides logo, slogans, and other marks, a trademark also covers the shape of goods, their packaging and color combinations and on the other hand a product or container shape can also be a design under Designs Act, 2000. However, considering distinctiveness of both legal branches Delhi High Court in MOHAN LAL, PROPRIETOR OF MOURYA INDUSTRIES vs SONA PAINT & HARDWARES [2013 (55) PTC 61 (Del) (FB)] held that a composite suit for design infringement and passing off is not maintainable.

In the present case of Carlsberg Breweries v Som Distilleries And Breweries Ltd [2017(70)PTC413(Del)], five judge bench of Delhi High Court overruled the earlier decision in Mohal Lal case and held that two causes of action of passing off, and design infringement under the Designs Act, 2000 can be joined and tried in a composite suit.

Facts

The issue arose when Carlsberg Breweries filed a case against Som Distilleries for infringing its design of TURBO beer bottles by the latter’s HUNTER’ beer bottles. The defendants took the defense of Mohan Lal case by contending that such a composite cannot be allowed. However, the Hon’ble court felt the need to relook the previous three judgment decision in Mohan lal case.

Analysis

In Carlbourg case, the defendant took the defence of Mohan lal case which took the reference from Dabur India v. R. K. Industries [AIR 2008 SC 3123] which did not allow the joinder of different causes of action wherein the Court lacked the jurisdiction to entertain any one of the causes of action. However, in the instant case the court held that application of Dabur case in Mohal lal case was fallacious. In furtherance of the same, in the Carlsberg case court said that in Mohal lal case court erred in applying Order II, Rule 3 of the CPC.

In Mohan Lal case, three judge bench of Delhi High Court concluded that cause of action for infringement of design and passing off were two different wrongs and governed under two separate legislations i.e Designs Act 2000 and the Trademarks Act 1999 respectively. Furthermore, the grounds for relief, and the defenses also differ substantially. Therefore, both the said actions cannot be combined. While rejecting the above claims five judge bench said that the origin of a complaint of passing off and that of design infringement is from the same fact i.e. sale or offer for sale, by the defendant of the rival product.

In furtherance of the same, observing the Dabar case and overruling the Mohan lal case, the Delhi High Court said that in the Dabar case the application of judicial mind was pertaining to a situation wherein the court lacked the jurisdictional power to adjudicate one of the cause of action in the joinder of causes of actions. However, it does not suggest that composite suit  having two causes of actions are barred per se and cannot be tried by a court. Thus, a composite suit for infringement of design and passing off is maintainable.

Conclusion

“Law can bar a remedy but not a right” however, Mohan Lal case barred the right of a party to join his two cause of actions. The underlying aim behind barring of joinder of causes of action or composite suit is to save the time and resources of the court as well as parties. It has the long run positive ramifications. Interestingly. the pertinent question arises on the point when the applicant wants to get it’s design registered when at the same time, the said design has started working as a trademark (an unregistered one) of that particular firm or company. In that situation, if design is not recognized for registration, the remedy can only be sought with respect to passing off. Furthermore, there can also be a situation where the registered design ultimately starts working as a trademark. Here, the question arises whether the remedy for passing off be sought separately in such situation.

Author: Lokesh Vyas, Institute of Law, Nirma University, Ahmadabad, Intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at pratistha@iiprd.com.

References:

[1]http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/766340/trials-appeals-compensation/Delhi-High-Court-Allows-Composite-Suit-For-Design-Infringement-And-Passing-Off

[2]https://spicyip.com/2018/12/delhi-hc-clearing-the-confusion-around-design-trademark-overlaps.html

[3]https://spicyip.com/2018/12/delhi-high-court-deals-with-yet-another-design-trademark-overlap.html

[5]https://spicyip.com/2017/05/carlsberg-v-som-distilleries-beer-meets-design-law-in-an-interesting-judgment.html

[6]https://barandbench.com/composite-suit-design-infringement-passing-off-maintainable/

[7]http://www.indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/courts-news/delhi-hc-okays-composite-suit-for-design-infringement-and-passing-off-58858

[8]http://www.mondaq.com/india/Carlsberg+Breweries+V+Som+Distilleries+And+Breweries+Ltd

[9]https://www.livelaw.in/causes-of-action-for-design-infringement-passing-off-can-be-combined-in-a-single-suit-delhi-hc-read-judgment/

[10]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FRWDX-C742ouAjZPzG2Yb1K426XUqf9E/view

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010