Passing off – Interlocutory injunction – It has also to be borne in mind that a mark in the form of a word which is not a derivative of the product, points to the source of the product – The mark/name WHIRLPOOL is associated for long, much prior to the defendants application in 1986 with the Whirlpool Corporation – plaintiff – In view of the prior user of the mark by plaintiff and its trans-border reputation extending to India, the trade mark WHIRLPOOL gives an indication of the origin of the goods as emanating from or relating to the Whirlpool Corporation – The High Court has re-corded its satisfaction that use of the WHIRLPOOL mark by the defendants indicates prima facie an intention to pass-off defendants washing machines as those of plaintiffs or atleast the likelihood of the buyers being confused or misled into that belief – The fact that the cost of defendants washing machine is 1/3rd of the cost of the plaintiffs washing machine, itself supports the plaintiffs plea that the defendants washing machines are not of the same engineering standard and are inferior in quality to the washing machines of the plaintiffs – It has been rightly held that the grant of interlocutory injunction would cause no significant injury to the defendants who can sell their washing machines merely by removing the small metallic strip bearing the offensive trade mark/name which includes WHIRLPOOL – On the other hand, refusal of the interlocutory injunction would cause irreparable injury to the plaintiffs reputation and goodwill since the trade mark/name WHIRLPOOL is associated for long because of prior user and even otherwise with the plaintiff – Whirlpool Corporation – These factors which have been relied on for grant of the interlocutory injunction by the trial court indicate that the exercise of discretion was in accordance with the settled principles of law relating to the grant of interlocutory injunctions in a passing-off action – The affirmance of the trial courts order by the Division Bench on an appeal reinforces the trial courts view – No interference.
read HERE: 1996 PLRonline 0002
.N.R. Dongre v. Whirlpool Corpn. , 1996 PLRonline 0002, (1996) 5 SCC 714
