Bombay HC Restrains Use of 'SHREE RAM BANDHU' in Trademark Dispute Over 'RAM BANDHU'

The Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to Empire Spices and Foods Limited, restraining a local trader from using the mark ‘SHREE RAM BANDHU’ or any other deceptively similar mark, holding that the plaintiff’s registered mark ‘RAM BANDHU’ deserves protection in its entirety, even if registered as a device mark.

Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, while hearing the trademark infringement suit filed by Empire Spices, rejected the defendant’s contention that rights could not be claimed over the words ‘RAM BANDHU’ separately due to Section 17 of the Trademarks Act.

“There is no ‘part’ of the ‘whole’ which is distinguishable to apply the provisions of Section 17… The entirety of the mark is subsumed in the Defendant’s mark,” Justice Deshmukh observed. “As the words ‘RAM BANDHU’ itself form the registered mark, the same are required to be protected and it is no defence to say that the words have not been registered separately.”

The plaintiff, Empire Spices, claimed trademark and copyright infringement by one Sanjay Bhimraoji Deshmukh trading as M/s Sanskriti Spices, who was using the mark ‘SHREE RAM BANDHU’. The court restricted its ruling to trademark and copyright infringement, as an application seeking leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent for the passing-off claim was still pending.

The defence argued that ‘RAM’ is a deity’s name and cannot be monopolised, and that the prefix ‘SHREE’ distinguishes the mark. The court, however, dismissed this defence, stating, “It is not the word ‘RAM’ but the mark ‘RAM BANDHU’ in its entirety that has been copied.”

Mumbai News: Carnac Bridge Ready But Still Shut As BMC Awaits Govt Nod Amid Protests And Public Inconvenience

The court noted that the plaintiff has been using the mark since 1972, and had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation. The brand is endorsed by celebrities and the artistic logo was created by a professional designer in 2002.

Dismissing the defendant’s claims of delay and acquiescence, the court found a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and ruled that allowing continued use of the impugned mark would cause confusion and dilute the plaintiff’s goodwill.

While granting the injunction, the court stayed its own order for four weeks on the defendant’s request, though this was opposed by the plaintiff.