Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench of C. Hari Shankar, J.* held that prima facie, a case of infringement was made out against the defendants, by use of the mark ‘JINDAL' in respect of PVC pipes, for which the plaintiff had registration since 2006, whereas the Defendant 1 had no registration in its favour of the mark ‘JINDAL' for PVC pipes.
Background
The plaintiff had registrations for the word mark ‘JINDAL ', for steel tubular poles, cast iron pipes, galvanized iron pipes and PVC pipes. The plaintiff also had registration in device mark 
for galvanized iron pipes and tubes since 1981. The plaintiff was aggrieved by Defendant 1's use of the mark 'JINDAL' for PVC pipes. Defendant 1 possessed trade mark registration, for the device mark 
in Class 20, covering 'PVC water storage tanks and PVC cabinet' since 1998 and for the marks 
in Class 20 for mirror cabinet and mirror frame made of plastic since 1999 and for the device mark 
in Class 11 covering cistern and cistern parts, floated balls, seat covers and bathtubs all made of plastic since 1999. The plaintiff had filed applications under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before the Registry of Trade Marks seeking rectification of the said registrations.
The plaintiff was aggrieved by the fact that, though Defendant 1 had no registration for the mark ‘JINDAL' in respect of PVC pipes and was the holder of a registration for the mark ‘J PLEX' for such pipes since 2020, Defendant 1 had now started using the mark ‘JINDAL' for PVC pipes. The plaintiff asserted prior user in mark ‘JINDAL' for PVC pipes, vis-a-vis Defendant 1. The plaintiff also had registration for the word mark ‘JINDAL' for PVC pipes since 2006.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court noted that the registration of the ‘JINDAL' device mark, held by Defendant 1, did not cover PVC pipes and the plaintiff, on the other hand, held a registration of the work mark ‘JINDAL' for PVC pipes since 2006. The Court stated that at this prima facie stage, it had no reason not to believe that Defendant 1 was, till recently, using its registered mark ‘J PLEX' for PVC pipes and had only recently started using the mark ‘JINDAL' on such pipes.
The Court noted that on the website of Defendant 1, even as on date, the recital to be found was that ‘JINDAL' was the mother brand of Defendant 1, which catered to its entire range of sanitaryware and plumbing products whereas ‘J PLEX' was another of Defendant 1's sub-brands, which catered to its pipes and fittings range of products. The Court opined that by applying the principle of balance of convenience at this stage, Defendant 1 would not be subjected to any serious prejudice if it was restrained from using ‘JINDAL' on its PVC pipes, as it was already using the mark ‘J PLEX', which was registered in Defendant 1's favour for PVC pipes.
Thus, the Court held that prima facie, a case of infringement was made out against the defendants, by use of the mark ‘JINDAL' in respect of PVC pipes, for which the plaintiff had registration since 2006, whereas the Defendant 1 had no registration in its favour of the mark ‘JINDAL' for PVC pipes. The Court directed that till the next date of hearing, the defendants were restrained from using the marks 
, 
, 
, 
, 
and 
or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade mark 'JINDAL' in any manner whatsoever on PVC pipes or any goods allied thereto.
The matter would next be listed on 1-8-2023.
[Jindal Industries (P) Ltd. v. Jindal Sanitaryware (P) Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2701, Order dated 9-5-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate; Sarad Kumar Sunny, Rohan Dua, Keshav Mann, Ananya, Advocates
For the Defendants: Abhishek Grover, Rakesh Tiwari, Advocates
