The Delhi High Court held that the terms “TIGER” and “BRAND” are generic, refusing interim injunction in a trademark infringement and passing off dispute over agricultural implements. Justice Tejas Karia dismissed Mayank Jain’s plea against Atulya Discs Pvt Ltd.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court ruled that the terms “TIGER” and “BRAND” are generic and cannot be exclusively owned, denying an interim injunction in a trademark infringement and passing off case concerning agricultural implements.
Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the injunction request from plaintiff Mayank Jain, owner of Mahaveer Udyog, against Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. and others (defendants).
The Court said,
“Having considered the averments in the pleadings and the submissions made by the Parties, the Plaintiff has no exclusive right over the Marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ as the same are generic in nature and common to the trade.”
Mahaveer Udyog, established in 1997, manufactures and sells agricultural implements like harrows, disc harrows, and tractor-towed harrows. The plaintiff claimed it adopted the device mark “TIGER GOLD BRAND” in May 2010 and has used it continuously since. An application for registration was filed in June 2022, with the registration granted in February 2023.
The plaintiff asserted it had developed significant goodwill and reputation over the years. In October 2024, it alleged that the defendants were marketing similar agricultural implements under the mark “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND.”
The plaintiff contended that the defendants had imitated key aspects of its mark, including the word “Tiger” and the tiger device, merely replacing “GOLD” with “PREMIUM” to misleadingly pass off their products as those of the plaintiff.
An interim injunction was sought to prevent the defendants from using the disputed mark, accusing them of trademark infringement, passing off, dilution, misrepresentation, and unfair competition. Some defendants operating online platforms also claimed protection as intermediaries under the Information Technology Act, 2000.
The defendants argued that “Tiger” is a common, generic term widely used in relation to agricultural products, maintaining that the plaintiff holds no registration for the word mark “Tiger.” They asserted that registration of a device mark does not grant exclusive rights over non-distinctive components.
The Court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to monopolize the word “Tiger,” stating:
“The Marks ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are generic in nature and incapable of being registered as a Trade Mark. Hence, ‘TIGER’ is publici juris and common to trade and is not uniquely identifiable with a particular goods or services of the Plaintiff.”
Regarding the plaintiff’s claim of distinctiveness, the Court noted:
“The plaintiff has also not produced any material to show that the Mark ‘TIGER’ has acquired secondary meaning.”
ALSO READ: Maggi Trademark Battle Ends: Delhi HC Approves Settlement with ‘Maggisun’ Utensil Company
Applying the anti-dissection rule while comparing the marks, the Court determined that the plaintiff’s mark and the defendants’ mark were not deceptively similar. Instead, when considered as a whole, they were distinctly different.
From the consumers’ perspective, particularly that of farmers, the Court concluded that the marks are visually dissimilar and would not cause confusion. On the issue of passing off, the Court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated goodwill or reputation, and therefore, a prima facie case of passing off was not established.
Consequently, the application for an injunction was dismissed, with the Court ruling that the use of “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND” by the defendants did not constitute trademark infringement, passing off, or copyright infringement of the plaintiff’s device mark.
The plaintiff was represented by advocates RP Yadav and Riju Mani Talukdar. Three defendants were represented by advocates Amit George, Manish Gandhi, Vaibhav Gandhi, Muskan Gandhi, Dushyant Kishan Kaul, and Rupam Jha. Another defendant was represented by advocates Rohini Sharma and Chanchal Sharma.
Case Title: Mayank Jain Vs Atulya Discs
Read Attachment: