Delhi High Court dismisses contempt plea by JIVA Institute against IHCL alleging Trademark Infringement
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed the contempt petition moved by the Jiva Institute of Vedic Science & Culture alleging gross, deliberate and continuing contempt of Court orders by the Indian Hotel Company Limited (IHCL). The Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer, Puneet Chhatwal, and other senior officials of IHCL had also been arrayed as parties in the case.
The Jiva Institute had moved the plea for alleged violation by way of sale of products and advertisements of the trademark “JIVA” by IHCL for advertising and marketing its non-ayurvedic products such as towels, under the trademark ‘JIVA’ on the websites of its hotels as well as through e-mails.
Among other prayers, the petitioners had also demanded that Respondent individuals who are responsible for the day-to-day management and conduct of affairs of IHCL to be punished with civil imprisonment and an exemplary fine.
However, a single-judge bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that a petitioner approaching the Court alleging contempt, cannot call upon the Court, in contempt jurisdiction, to interpret the order differing from the manner in which it reads and only those directions which are plainly self-evident have to be taken into account to determine the violation or disobedience.
Referring to Apex Court's judgment in Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others, (2002), the bench dismissed the petition noting that it was unable to read any explicit or even implied direction/restraint in any of the orders, referred to and relied upon by the Petitioners Institute which restrained IHCL from marketing, advertising the articles used about their Spas.
Factual Matrix of the case
On October 17, 2006, the High Court had granted an ex parte ad interim injunction against IHCL and its Managing Director, restraining them from adopting and/or using the trademark ‘JIVA’ or any other identical or deceptively similar or confusing mark, about their goods and services and from manufacturing, advertising, and marketing, etc. any goods or services under the said trademark.
In an appeal against the said order, the Division Bench of this High Court, vide order dated may 20, 2008, partly allowed the appeal, whereby the order of 2006, restraining IHCL from using the trademark ‘JIVA’ for their Spas run in the hotels established by them, was vacated, subject to certain conditions. However, the order to the extent it restrained the company from selling, using or offering for sale/use any ayurvedic product under the trademark ‘JIVA’, was confirmed.
Petitioner Institute also claimed that in 2014, when it came to the knowledge of the Petitioners that the orders were being violated by IHCL, a contempt petition was filed, wherein, after hearing the parties extensively, the Court had taken on record the statement and assurance on behalf of the Respondents therein including IHCL that they would not use the mark ‘JIVA’ about disputed goods or for any cosmetic, soaps, ayurvedic, non-ayurvedic, or any other allied and cognate goods, except in respect of ‘JIVA’ for Spa and relation to the pillow, towels, handkerchiefs and other articles related to the Spas.
The counsel for the Petitioners submitted that recently, it came to the notice of the Petitioners that IHCL has been advertising and marketing its non-ayurvedic products such as towels, under the trademark ‘JIVA’ on the websites of its hotels as well as through e-mails.
It was further submitted that along with the pictorial presentation of the facilities available in the Spas, IHCL was providing a written description of a variety of Spa services and other treatments available, including a description of the ayurvedic products used therein, thereby indirectly advertising the products, against which there is a restraint order, leading to a deceptive association of its ayurvedic and non-ayurvedic products to the trademark ‘JIVA’.
Such advertisements, according to the petitioners were in clear violation of Court's order of 2006, read with the order dated May 30, 2008, and the assurance given by the Respondent to the court on April 4, 2016.
Observations made by the Court
Court was of the view that it was evident that in the appeal against the 2006 order, the Division bench passed two different directions and had rejected the 2006 order restraining IHCL from using the trademark ‘JIVA’ for their Spas run in their hotels, subject to certain conditions,however, there was no restraint on any advertisement or marketing with respect to running of the Spas.
Court, therefore, observed, “Clearly, there was no restraint on any advertisement or marketing concerning the running of the Spas, the services and facilities offered therein or articles such as pillows, towels, handkerchiefs, etc. related to the Spas, under the trademark ‘JIVA’. Restraint order by the learned Single Judge, on offering for sale/use of the ayurvedic products under the trademark ‘JIVA’, as confirmed by the Division Bench in para 46(b) of the order, cannot be extended to running of the Spas and the articles used therein, which is evident from a plain and conjoint reading of paras 46(a) and 46(b) of the order dated 30.05.2008.”
“Perusal of the documents, on which the Petitioners have predicated their allegations of contempt, annexed with the present petition, reflects that Respondents have only advertised facilities and services rendered in their Spas along with pictures of the articles used in relation thereto,” noted court.
Court further highlighted that pictorial presentations indicated that Respondents have only given descriptions of the various therapies, Spa treatments, etc. available at their Spas along with the benefits that flow out of the said treatments.
"Albeit the pictures in the e-mails and on the websites showcase certain products, however, the mark ‘JIVA’ is only reflected on the towels. The bottles alleged to be the infringing products do not contain any label or description to even remotely indicate or suggest that any ayurvedic or non-ayurvedic products under the trademark ‘JIVA’ are being advertised or marketed, in violation of the orders of the Court, as alleged by the Petitioners,” Court noted.
Significantly, Court held that each of the articles depicted in the pictures was those which were related to the Spas, particularly, the towels, and fall within the window of permitted user, by the order of the division bench and statement given to the court on behalf of IHCL.
Therefore, stressing that the power vested in the High Court to punish for contempt is a very special and drastic power and needs to be exercised with great care and caution, Court dismissed the plea stating,
“A Petitioner approaching the Court alleging contempt, cannot call upon the Court, in a contempt jurisdiction, to interpret the order differs from the manner in which it reads and only those directions which are plainly self-evident have to be taken into account to determine the violation or disobedience.”
The Indian Hotel Company Ltd. was represented by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocates who were briefed by a team from Karanjawala and Co. comprising of Ms. Meghna Mishra, Partner, Mr. Arjit Benjamin, Senior Associate and Ms. Aishwariya Chaturvedi, Associate. Jiva Institute of Vedic Science & Culture was represented by Singh & Singh, comprising of Mr. Sudeep Chaterjee, Partner along with Mr. Tejveer Bhatia, Partner.
Case Title: Jiva Institute of Vedic Science & Culture and Anr. v. Puneet Chhatwal & Ors.