The recent interim ruling in a trademark dispute case sheds light on the
complexities and critical considerations in adjudicating trademark rights,
particularly in scenarios involving alleged fabrication of evidence. This case
revolves around the contested trademark "HUALI," used in relation to furniture
components.
Plaintiff's Trademark History:
The Plaintiff first adopted the trademark HUALI in 2004 internationally and
subsequently in 2007 within India. The Plaintiff has used this mark consistently
and extensively in relation to furniture components. To secure their rights in
India, the Plaintiff filed for registration under the Trade Marks Act, 1999,
through application No. 2777522 dated July 21, 2014. This application is
currently pending consideration and has been opposed by Defendant No. 1.
Additionally, the Plaintiff has secured registration for their device mark "HUAFULI"
under No. 2842353 in Class 20.
Defendant's Trademark Maneuvering:
The Defendants adoption and use of the identical trademark HUALI for
identical goods has aggrieved the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 initially applied
for registration of the mark HUALI through application No. 3925098 dated
August 24, 2018, on a Proposed to be Used basis. However, shortly before
opposing the Plaintiff's trademark application, Defendant No. 1 strategically
amended their application to claim usage dating back to August 24, 2008.
Defendant No. 1 withdrew their initial application and re-applied for
registration of the mark HUALI through application No. 4146654, maintaining
the claimed usage date of August 24, 2008. This subsequent application, which
has since been granted, was filed on the same date that Defendant No. 1 opposed
the Plaintiff's trademark application. Notably, this second application was not
mentioned in the notice of opposition, hindering the Plaintiff's ability to
contest it.
Questionable Documentation:
The trademark HUALI is currently registered under Defendant No. 1's name. The
Plaintiff has initiated a passing off action, asserting their prior use and
directly challenging the validity of this registration on multiple grounds.
Several bills of lading presented by the Defendants have raised suspicions:
Bills of Lading Predating Entity Existence:
The bills dated June 25, 2009, December 19, 2010, and July 26, 2011, list
Defendant No. 1's company (All Star Co.) as the shipper and Defendant No. 3 (Kalkaji
Glasses Pvt. Ltd.) as the consignee. However, All Star Co. was incorporated in
China on May 23, 2014, and Defendant No. 3 was incorporated on January 29, 2010,
receiving their Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) only on December 27, 2012. These
dates establish that the bills of lading predate the official existence of both
entities, rendering them prima facie not genuine.
GST Anomalies:
Further bills dated August 26, 2012, October 18, 2013, and August 17, 2014,
mention All Star Co. as the shipper and Defendant No. 4 (Kalkaji Enterprises) as
the consignee. These documents list the GST number of Defendant No. 4, GSTIN
19AAIFK4362M2ZT, despite the GST regime being introduced in India only in 2016,
making these entries anachronistic.
Court's Prima Facie Opinion:
The temporal anomalies in the Defendants documentation suggest potential
manipulation and fabrication, seriously undermining the credibility of their
assertions. Defendant No. 1 explicitly acknowledged that exports to Defendant
No. 2 only commenced in 2015, contradicting Defendant No. 2's claims of using
the HUALI brand since 2008.
Given these inconsistencies and the dubious nature of the evidence presented,
the court, in its prima facie opinion, found the documents produced by the
Defendants to be forged and fabricated. Consequently, the court determined that
the Defendants adoption of the identical HUALI trademark was a dishonest
attempt to deceive consumers into believing their products were associated with
or originated from the Plaintiff.
Interim Injunction Granted:
In light of these findings, the court concluded that the Plaintiff had made out
a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction. This ruling prevents
the Defendants from using the HUALI trademark, thereby safeguarding the
Plaintiff's trademark rights until the final resolution of the case.
Author's Ending Note:
This case underscores the critical importance of genuine and credible
documentation in trademark disputes. The court's meticulous scrutiny of the
Defendants' evidence, particularly the bills of lading, highlights the
judiciary's role in preventing the manipulation of records to establish
trademark rights fraudulently. The decision to grant an interim injunction
reflects a commitment to maintaining fair competition and protecting the
legitimate rights of trademark holders.
Case Citation: Donguan Huali Industries Co. Ltd. Vs Anand Aggarwal: 01.07.2024:
CS COM 229 of 2023 : 2024:DHC:4878:Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, H.J.
Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering
insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own
discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein
is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and
presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and
Trademark Attorney
Email:
[email protected], Ph no: 9990389539
Please Drop Your Comments