This case revolves around a trademark infringement and passing-off dispute concerning the use of the trademark "BROAD PEAK." The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from using an identical mark, alleging infringement of their intellectual property rights. The court was called upon to analyze competing claims of prior use, goodwill, and misrepresentation in this intricate legal battle.

• Background:
  • The plaintiffs, Broad Peak Investment Holdings Ltd. and its subsidiary, are global investment managers operating under the trademark "BROAD PEAK" since 2006.
  • They alleged that the defendants, Broad Peak Capital Advisors LLP, adopted the same mark in 2016, leading to market confusion and harm to their goodwill.
  • The plaintiffs sought to enforce their rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as well as common law principles of passing off.
  • The defendants claimed that their adoption of the mark was bona fide and independent, with no prior knowledge of the plaintiffs' operations.
• Brief Facts of the Case:
  • The plaintiffs began using the mark "BROAD PEAK" in 2006 and registered it in India in 2017.
  • The defendants incorporated their firm under the same name in 2016 and registered their trademark shortly after.
  • Both parties provided investment advisory services, although they catered to different clientele.
  • The plaintiffs alleged confusion in the market, citing evidence of mistaken communications addressed to the defendants.
• Issues Raised:
  • Infringement: Whether the defendants' use of the trademark "BROAD PEAK" constitutes infringement of the plaintiffs' rights under the Trade Marks Act.
  • Passing Off: Whether the defendants' actions amounted to passing off, causing harm to the plaintiffs' goodwill and reputation.
  • Goodwill and Prior Use: Whether the plaintiffs had established sufficient goodwill and prior use of the mark in India to claim exclusive rights.
  • Honest and Concurrent Use: Whether the defendants' use of the mark was bona fide and protected under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act.
• Plaintiff Submission:
  • Claimed prior adoption and registration of the trademark "BROAD PEAK" since 2006 globally and 2017 in India.
  • Alleged confusion and misrepresentation by the defendants' identical use of the mark.
  • Cited evidence of market confusion, such as emails and third-party listings.
• Defendant Submission:
  • Argued that they adopted the mark independently in 2016 after conducting due diligence.
  • Claimed honest and concurrent use of the mark since 2016.
  • Highlighted the absence of widespread use or goodwill of the plaintiffs' mark in India prior to 2017.
• Judgments Referred and Their Context:
  • S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai [(2016) 2 SCC 683]: Established the triple test for passing off: goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage.
  • Satyam Infoway v. Siffynet Solutions [(2004) 6 SCC 145]: Highlighted the importance of proving reputation and misrepresentation for a passing-off claim.
  • Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. Prius Auto Industries [(2018) 2 SCC 1]: Emphasized the principle of territoriality and the need to prove goodwill in India for trademark protection.
  • Cadila Healthcare v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals [(2001) 5 SCC 73]: Discussed factors for determining deceptive similarity, including the education and sophistication of consumers.
• Reasoning of the Judge:
  • Goodwill and Reputation: The court found that the plaintiffs’ evidence showed sporadic use in India, insufficient to establish goodwill.
  • Misrepresentation: The defendants' adoption of the mark appeared bona fide, with no evidence of deliberate copying.
  • Market Confusion: While instances of confusion were cited, the judge held that the clientele of both parties were sophisticated investors unlikely to be misled.
  • Concurrent Use: The court upheld the defendants’ claim of honest and concurrent use, given their continuous use since 2016.

Decision:
The application for an interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed. The court allowed both parties to retain their respective trademark registrations, pending trial.

Concluding Note:
This case underscores the complexity of trademark disputes, particularly in industries involving sophisticated clientele. It reiterates the importance of proving goodwill and reputation within the Indian jurisdiction to secure exclusive rights under trademark law. The judgment highlights the balance courts must strike between protecting intellectual property and respecting honest and concurrent use.

Case Title: Broad Peak Investment Holdings Ltd. Vs Broad Peak Capital Advisors LLP
Date of Order: January 20, 2025
Case No.: CS(COMM) 405/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:267
Court: High Court of Delhi
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

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: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539