Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently granted an ad-interim injunction in favour of the well-known sewing machine brand ‘USHA’ in its trademark infringement suit against Haseen Ahmed Training as TUSHA Sewing Machine Co. for using a deceptively similar mark ‘TUSHA’ in respect of the same work.

Justice Navin Chawla opined that the two marks appeared to be deceptively similar and that Usha International Ltd had shown its goodwill and reputation in its mark ‘USHA’ and also affirmed that it had been zealously protecting it.

The plaintiff registered the trademark ‘USHA’ in 1936 and had been using it since then in relation to sewing machines and their parts.

It was argued that the 'USHA' logos are an 'original artistic work' under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and that they were registered as copyrighted works in 1970 and 1979, granting Usha International Limited the exclusive right to copy or reproduce them.

It was further contended that Usha International Limited was aggrieved with adoption of the mark 'TUSHA,' which they claimed came to their attention in the first week of March 2022. Thereafter, on March 21, 2022, Usha served a cease-and-desist notice on the defendant, Haseen Ahmed Trading as TUSHA Sewing Machine Co.

The defendants on the other hand claimed that their mark was registered in September 2020 for sewing machines and their parts (except needles).

Usha claimed that the defendants applied for the registration on the ‘proposed to be used’ basis, and were granted registration during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It was argued that according to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Dr.Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. vs. Controller General of Patent Designs & Trade Marks, the registration of the said mark, on the opposition being filed by the plaintiff, is deemed to have been suspended.

Usha alleged that the defendant’s use of the mark was dishonest and intended only to capitalize on its reputation. It was also contended that the mark ‘USHA’ had been declared as a ‘well-known trademark’ under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in Usha Rani v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Anr (2004).

While granting an ad interim injunction in favour of Usha, the Court appointed a Local Commissioner, Advocate Deeksha Khurana of Tis Hazari Court, to visit the defendants' premises and take stock of and inventorize all products, as well as confiscate and release all products on superdaari to the defendants.

Court also ordered that if required, the Local Commissioner may seek police assistance and protection to carry out the order and directed the SHO of concerned areas to provide immediate assistance to the Local Commissioner upon request.

Case Title: Usha International Limited v. Mr. Haseen Ahmed Training as TUSHA Sewing Machine Co.