Identical and Confusingly similar to the tagline “Pehle Istemal kare phir Vishwas kare“
While determining whether there is an Infringement of a Trademark, one need not look at the dissimilarity, but one needs to see the similarity and in the present case all the words except one word have a similarity.
Rohini Court, Delhi: A petition seeking an ad-interim injunction against the respondent restraining the respondent from using the tagline ‘Pehle check Kare fir Vishwas kare‘ in respect to plaintiffs’ tagline/’Pehle check Karen Phir Vishwas karen’ in respect of detergent powder, soap, etc.
Under the Trademark Ghari, Gurdeep Singh, J. restrains the Respondent from using, selling, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising, or in any other manner or manner dealing with or using the impugned trademark/label/punchline/tagline/literary work.
‘Pehle Check Karen Phir Vishwas Karen’ or any other trademark/label/punchline/tagline/literary work which is identical and/or By doing any other act in relation to the business of manufacture, trading, purchase, supply, distribution,
Import and export of ‘first use then trust’ their impugned goods and jewelry of all kinds and other allied and related goods and services or works likely to infringe or infringe on Plaintiff’s registered trademarks and copyrights; and to pass on his goods and business as the goods and business of the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing Soap, Detergent Powder, Detergent Cake, Salt, Shampoo, Hair Oil, Toothpaste,
Moisturizer, Shaving Cream, Liquid Hand Wash, Floor Cleaner, Liquid Detergent, Toilet Cleaner, and others. Other associated and homogeneous goods. In 1988, the plaintiff adopted and started using the trademark/punchline/tagline/literary work ‘PEHLE ISTEMAL KAREN PHIR VISHWAS KAREN’ on his said goods and business.
The plaintiff’s complaint is that the defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing, trading, purchasing, supplying, distributing, importing, and exporting all kinds of jewelry and other allied and related goods and services and has started using the trademarks/labels. Have given. /Punchline/Tagline/Literary work ‘PEHLE CHECK KAREN PHIR VISHWAS KAREN’ in relation to your disputed goods and business.
The Court noted that the plaintiff’s mark is well-established and that due to the widespread publicity of the trademark, the tagline is identified with the goods coming from the plaintiff’s home and has led to widespread publicity through long users and celebrities/films Because of the achievement. Stars like Mr. Amitabh Bachchan and Mr. Nagarjuna, Madhuri Dixit.
On the argument by the Respondent that the Trademark/Tagline of the Plaintiff is descriptive in nature and hence cannot be protected, the Court held that it is not in the mouth of the Respondent as the Respondent himself has applied for the same type of registration. Those who according to them are descriptive and hence, cannot take advantage of the descriptive mark.
On the argument by the defendant that the adoption of a tagline is not identified as their tagline means ‘first check and then trust’ whereas the tagline of the plaintiff means ‘first use and then trust’, the court observed that if someone reads in Hindi, it will immediately attract his attention towards the tagline of the plaintiff and only change of one word does not show that tagline/mark is different.
Pehle Istemal Kare Phir Vishwas kare
The Court observed that the tagline ‘Pehle Check Karen Phir Vishwas Karen’ is similar and misleadingly similar to the tagline ‘Pehle check Karen Phir Vishwas Karen, which is likely to create confusion between the buying public and the trader as to whether the trademark is Under there are also goods coming from the plaintiff’s house.
Thus, the Court held that a prima- facie case towards the infringement of trademark, copyright, and passing off is made in favor of the plaintiff and balance of convenience is also lying in its favor as well as irreparable loss in terms of goodwill would be caused to the plaintiff if no ad-interim injunction is passed in its favor, so ad-interim order passed in favor of the plaintiff.