Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Injunction in Trademark 'Covishield' Passing Off Dispute. Cutis Biotech failed to establish prima facie case of passing off as the mark 'Covishield' is descriptive and not exclusively associated with the appellant.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute concerns the trademark 'Covishield'. The appellant, Cutis Biotech, a sole proprietorship, filed a suit in the Commercial Court at Pune seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondent, Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd., from using the trademark 'Covishield' and to maintain accounts. The Commercial Court rejected the interim application. Cutis Biotech appealed under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Neither party has a registered trademark for 'Covishield'. The appellant based its case on passing off under Section 27(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The court considered the principles for grant of interim injunction in passing off actions. It noted that the mark 'Covishield' is descriptive, being a combination of 'Covid' and 'shield', and the appellant failed to establish that the mark is exclusively associated with its goods. The court also considered the balance of convenience and public interest, noting that the respondent is a major manufacturer of the Covid-19 vaccine and an injunction would disrupt vaccine supply. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commercial Court's order.

Headnote

A) Trade Marks - Passing Off - Unregistered Trademark - Section 27(2) Trade Marks Act, 1999 - The appellant sought interim injunction to restrain use of unregistered trademark 'Covishield' based on passing off. The court held that since the mark is descriptive and not exclusively associated with the appellant, no prima facie case for passing off is made out. (Paras 3-5)

B) Trade Marks - Interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Balance of Convenience - The court found that the balance of convenience is in favor of the respondent, which is a major vaccine manufacturer, and that the public interest in uninterrupted vaccine supply outweighs the appellant's claim. (Paras 5-6)

C) Trade Marks - Descriptive Mark - Distinctiveness - The mark 'Covishield' is derived from 'Covid' and 'shield', indicating a shield against Covid-19, and is descriptive. The appellant failed to show that the mark has acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning. (Para 4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellant Cutis Biotech is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the respondent Serum Institute from using the trademark 'Covishield' on the ground of passing off.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. Order of Commercial Court refusing interim injunction upheld.

Law Points

  • Passing off
  • unregistered trademark
  • interim injunction
  • prima facie case
  • balance of convenience
  • irreparable loss
  • descriptive mark
  • public interest
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (BOM) (04) 35

Appeal from Order No. 53 of 2021

2021-04-20

Nitin Jamdar, C. V. Bhadang

2021:BHC-AS:5632-DB

Mr. Abhinav Chandrachud, Mr. Aditya Soni, Chetan Alai, Shriniwas Bade, Mr. Swaraj Jadhav (for Appellant); Dr. Birendra Saraf, Mr. Rohan Savant, Mr. Hitesh Jain, Ms. Pooja Tidke, Ms. Monisha Mane Bhangale, Ms. Warisha Parkar (for Respondent)

Cutis Biotech (Sole Proprietorship concern through its sole proprietor Archana Ashish Kabra)

Serum Institute of India Pvt. Ltd. (through its Director Adar Cyrus Poonawalla)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal from order refusing interim injunction in a passing off suit regarding trademark 'Covishield'.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought interim injunction to restrain respondent from using trademark 'Covishield' and to maintain accounts.

Filing Reason

Appellant claimed prior use of trademark 'Covishield' and alleged passing off by respondent.

Previous Decisions

Commercial Court at Pune rejected the interim application.

Issues

Whether the appellant has made out a prima facie case for passing off? Whether the balance of convenience lies in favor of granting interim injunction? Whether the appellant would suffer irreparable loss if injunction is not granted?

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued prior use of 'Covishield' and likelihood of confusion. Respondent contended that 'Covishield' is descriptive and not exclusively associated with appellant, and public interest in vaccine supply outweighs.

Ratio Decidendi

For an interim injunction in a passing off action, the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. Where the mark is descriptive and not exclusively associated with the plaintiff, and the defendant's use is in public interest, no injunction will be granted.

Judgment Excerpts

The subject matter of this Appeal is the trademark ‘Covishield’. Neither Cutis Biotech nor Serum Institute have a registration for the trademark- ‘Covishield’. Sub Section (1) of Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 mandates that no person shall be entitled to institute any proceeding to prevent or recover damages for the infringement of an unregistered trademark.

Procedural History

Cutis Biotech filed a suit in Commercial Court at Pune seeking interim injunction. The Commercial Court rejected the interim application. Cutis Biotech appealed to the High Court under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Commercial Courts Act, 2015: 13
  • Trade Marks Act, 1999: 27(1), 27(2)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Refusal of Interim Injunction in Trademark 'Covishield' Passing Off Dispute. Cutis Biotech failed to establish prima facie case of passing off as the mark 'Covishield' is descriptive and not exclusively asso...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case Due to Inconsistent Evidence and Failure to Prove Victim's Age. Conviction under Section 376(1) IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act set aside as prosecution failed to establish victim was a child under POCSO Ac...