The Delhi High Court has recently restrained a person from using the trademark Goodyear which is associated with and is a registered trademark of the multinational tyre company.
The case of the plaintiff is that the oldest registration of the mark of Goodyear in the USA was in 1906. The said mark was adopted in India in 1920.
Justice Jayant Nath issued notice to one Deva Nand Shukla, who is using the mark “Goodyear’ which is identical or deceptively similar to the registered trademark of one of the world’s largest tyre companies, The Goodyear Tyre and Rubber Company.
The defendant company has been restrained from using the mark Goodyear or any other mark which is identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff (Goodyear) in any manner whatsoever.
The petitioner company stated that the mark of ‘Goodyear’ was first registered in the USA in 1906 and later adopted in India in 1920. The earliest registration of the mark ‘Goodyear’ in India in Class 12 for tyres for vehicle wheels and inner tubes is of 1943. The company also started selling lubricants under the same mark. The mark ‘AUTOMOBILE Goodyear’ was registered on 05.01.2019 in respect of industrial oil and grease, lubricants, lubricating oils etc.
However the defendants argued that the defendant has been using the impugned trademark ‘Goodyear’ in respect of brake oil, grease, gear oil, etc. since 1997. It was also argued that the mark was registered in 2002.
The bench observed that the Petitioner Goodyear tyre trademark is prima-facie a well-known mark and the company presently employs 64,000 people in 47 facilities in 21 countries around the world having a turnover to the extent of 50 Billion US Dollars evidencing the extensive reputation and goodwill accruing to the trademark.
The court referred to the judgement of the Co-ordinate bench in the case of in the case of United Distillers PLC v. Jagdish Joshi & Ors., (2000) 88 DLT 142 where,“9.
The learned Counsel has also relied upon several judgments to contend that in respect of well-known trademarks a restraint order can be issued even in respect to different goods. It is only necessary to consider the illustrative case of Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft and Another v. Hybo Hindustan, AIR 1994 Delhi 239, where an automobile manufacturer was granted a restraint order in respect of undergarments in respect of a known trade mark. Thus it is well settled law that the known trademarks do enjoy protection in respect of its unauthorised use on goods other than those goods for which the trade mark is registered…”
The application was filed under order 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking injunction till the final disposal of the matter. The next date given for arguments is September 9, 2021.
Justice-Jayant-Nath-25-1