TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Mangal Yadav & Anr.

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present suit relates to the trademark ‘TATA’.

3. The suit has been filed by the Plaintiff - TATA Sons Pvt. Ltd, which is the principal investor and promoter of the TATA group of companies seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of registered trademarks and copyrights, passing off, dilution and tarnishment of trademarks, etc.

4. The mark ‘TATA’ is one of the most reputed marks in India. The group was founded by Shri Jamsetji Nusserwanji Tata, which is a rare patronymic name possessing the distinctiveness of an invented word. The use of the mark ‘TATA’ dates back to 1868. The group of Tata companies is generally known as the `House of Tata’. The mark ‘TATA’ is registered in almost all goods and services considering the large expanse of the usage of the said mark. The mark ‘TATA’ has been subject matter of litigation of several cases and injunctions have been granted protecting the mark. The TATA group of companies as on date has a consolidated revenue of $128 Billion. Undoubtedly, the mark ‘TATA’ is a well-known mark.

5. The present suit relates to manufacture of pressure cookers under the mark ‘TATA’ by Defendant No.1 - Mangal Yadav trading as M/s. R.M.I. Enterprise and Defendant No.2 - Sanjeev Jain trading as A&A Packaging. The Defendant No.1 is the manufacturer and seller of the pressure cookers under the mark ‘TATA’. The cartons and the printing of the packaging was being done by the Defendant No.2. Plaintiff acquired knowledge of the Defendants using the mark ‘TATA’ for pressure cookers sometime in November, 2019. Accordingly, the present suit was filed.

6. Vide order dated 6th December, 2019, an ex-parte ad interim injunction was granted and Local Commissioners were appointed. The said injunction was granted in the following terms.

7. Accordingly, local commissions were executed at the premises of the Defendants. Insofar as the Defendant No.2 is concerned, the local commission was conducted on 6th December, 2019. The local commissioner reported that the Defendant No.2 - Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jain informed him that he had been supplying the packaging with ‘TATA’ mark to Defendant No.1. However, upon being asked by the local commissioner, Defendant No.2 did not produce any invoices or accounts. The Commissioner then inspected the premises and found packaging material for pressure cookers bearing the mark ‘TATA’. The inventory seized by the said commissioner is to the tune of 1678 pieces of two litres and five litres pressure cookers in cardboard boxes. The mark ‘TATA’ was used in two variant forms in brown and blue colour packaging. The images of some of the infringing packaging material is set out below: \

8. Insofar as Defendant No.1 is concerned, the local commission was conducted on 11th December, 2019 - the inventory seized by the commissioner is as under: INVENTORY (1) Enclosing Stamp of TATA 1 Nos. (2) TATA Stickers 41 Nos. (3) Unusual TATA packing Material (Cartons) 189 Nos (4) 3L Cookers in packaging Bearing TATA Mark on Packaging 191 Nos. (5) 5 Cookers in packaging Bearing TATA mark a Packaging 404 Nos.

9. Also from the inspection of the Defendant no.1’s premises, it was revealed that the mark ‘TATA’ was also being embossed on the pressure cooker itself. The ‘TATA’ stamp, which was found at the Defendant’s premises, was also seized by the Local Commissioner.

10. The present application i.e. I.A. 773/2023 has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking summary judgment.

11. Insofar as the Defendant No.1 is concerned, the Defendant No.1 is stated to have filed the written statement and served a copy of the same to ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff. He has also filed an admission/denial affidavit admitting various documents. The said written statement, which was filed along with the statement of admission/denial is stated to have returned vide order dated 21st August, 2020. However, the same appears to have not been re-filed as the written statement of Defendant no.1 is not on record.

12. A perusal of the copy of the written statement served by Defendant No.1’s counsel Mr. B.P. Puri to ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff shows that the written statement has merely denied all the averments in the plaint without raising any defence whatsoever. The statement of admission/denial annexed to the written statement, admits the well-known nature of the documents illustrating well known nature of the Plaintiff’s well known trademark, the Plaintiff’s website, news articles, trademark registrations, brochures, press clippings etc. The complete list of documents, which has been admitted by the Defendant No.1 is as under:

13. Mr. Umesh Mishra, ld. Counsel for the Defendant No.2 submits that the Defendant No.2 was merely manufacturing packaging material for the Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.2 itself did not make any sales or any products under the brand name ‘TATA’. Be that as it may, even the printing of the packaging with the name ‘TATA’ cannot be condoned. The Plaintiff is entitled to the summary judgment qua Defendant No.2.

14. Insofar as the Defendant No.1 is concerned, the said Defendant has admitted the well-known nature of the Plaintiff’s mark as also admitted various trademark registrations of the Plaintiff. In any event, the use of the mark ‘TATA’ by the Defendant No.1 in respect of the pressure cookers is completely violative of the Plaintiff’s statutory and common law rights. The mark ‘TATA’ is now sufficiently ingrained in the minds of customers in India and globally. The use of the mark ‘TATA’ in respect of any products or services, would only be relatable to the Plaintiff and none else. Thus, the use of the mark ‘TATA’ seal on the products is completely not condonable, inasmuch as even the logo of ‘TATA’ is fully imitative. Thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to the summary judgment qua Defendant No.2.